Critical Decisions within Student Learning Objectives: Target Setting Model

Critical Decisions within Student Learning Objectives: Target Setting Model Determining Target Setting Models that align with District/BOCES, Building/Program and/or Course Goals

In this webinar, you will: 1. 2. 3. Review the benefits of setting high-quality SLOs. Revisit considerations when setting targets. Examine outcomes based on various target-setting models. 2

Benefits of High-Quality SLOs encourage educators to focus and align instruction with district/boces and school priorities, goals, and academic improvement plans evidence indicates that setting rigorous and ambitious learning goals, combined with the purposeful use of data through both formal and informal (formative) assessments, leads to higher academic performance by students monitoring learning objectives can help determine, and bring greater focus to, particular areas of need and allow for targeted, differentiated professional development 3

Considerations When Setting Targets Which district/boces, building, and/or course goals/priorities could be leveraged through high-quality SLOs? What baseline student performance data will be used to inform target setting (e.g., historical data)? What target setting model will best support and reflect the district, building, and/or course goals/priorities? What process has been outlined in the district s/boces APPR plan? What type of information can be gained from various target setting models? 4

To what extent do the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) reflect College & Career Ready rigor and drive continuous improvement in instruction? Multi-State SLO Rubric Rubric designed to ensure: all students are included; quality standards; evidence and baseline directly inform the target; target is rigorous - yet attainable - and differentiated to meet students needs; target is based on multiple measures and anchored in data; and rationale explains how all of the SLO elements fit together to ensure educator is thoughtfully focused on improving student achievement and preparing students for the next level of learning. For a webinar on how to use this rubric, visit SLO webinar 102: http://www.engag eny.org/resource/ slo-102-forteachers 5

Common Target Setting Models 1. Individual Growth Targets 2. Class-wide Minimum Rigor 3. Class-wide Growth to Mastery 4. Banded/Range-based 5. Half to 100/Close the Gap 6

Sample Class High school English teacher with 5 sections of 9 th grade English and 140 total students. These sections represent 100% of this teacher s course load. Applying rules about which SLOs must be created for this teacher: No State-provided growth score for 9 th Grade English All sections end in the same common assessment so this teacher will have one SLO to cover all of the students in all sections 7

Sample Data Here we focus on just a subgroup of 10 students for illustrative purposes. This is the group we will focus on for the remainder of this webinar. We are showing the baseline data and final performance so we can illustrate generally the outcomes of various target setting models. Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 81 B 52 68 C 60 94 D 48 77 E 62 80 F 20 62 G 54 92 H 32 87 I 12 58 J 28 70 8

Individual Growth Targets Each student has an individual, differentiated target that is based on individual baseline academic performance. Individual students either meet or do not meet their individual target. Evaluator provides one score between 0-20 points using the approved HEDI chart. 9

Application of Individual Growth Targets Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 65 81 Y B 52 70 68 N C 60 85 94 Y D 48 70 77 Y E 62 80 80 Y F 20 65 62 N G 54 80 92 Y H 32 80 87 Y I 12 65 58 N J 28 65 70 Y 70% of students met this classwide minimum rigor target Note: please view SLO webinar 103 for more information on using past performance trends and student historical data to inform appropriate targets: http://www.engageny.org/re source/slo-103-for-teachers Illustrative Data Set 10

Analysis of the Model Alignment: -align well with goals and/or priorities that are geared towards closing achievement gaps and/or ensuring rigorous amounts of growth for students at differing starting levels of performance as evidenced by multiple data points Student Performance: -flexibility in target setting in this model lends itself to datadriven decisions, emphasizing high expectations of growth for all Teacher Development: (discussed with next slide) 11

Application of Individual Growth Targets Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 65 81 Y B 52 70 68 N C 60 85 94 Y D 48 70 77 Y E 62 80 80 Y F 20 65 62 N G 54 80 92 Y H 32 80 87 Y I 12 65 58 N J 28 65 70 Y 70% of students met this classwide minimum rigor target Note: please view SLO webinar 103 for more information on using past performance trends and student historical data to inform appropriate targets: http://www.engageny.org/re source/slo-103-for-teachers Illustrative Data Set 12

Class-wide Minimum Rigor Target Each SLO has a minimum rigor target for what would reflect the Meets level of performance. Individual students either meet/do not meet the class-wide minimum rigor target. Evaluator provides one score between 0-20 points using an approved HEDI chart. 13

Application of Class-wide Minimum Rigor Target Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 65 81 Y B 52 65 68 Y C 60 65 94 Y D 48 65 77 Y E 62 65 80 Y F 20 65 62 N G 54 65 92 Y H 32 65 87 Y I 12 65 58 N J 28 65 70 Y 80% of students met this classwide minimum rigor target Illustrative Sample Data Set 14

Alignment: Analysis of the Model -this model reflects the goal of all students demonstrating a minimum level of growth based on district/boces and/or school expectations -this model could also be used in conjunction with other target setting models to establish parameters it could be used to represent the bare minimum of expected growth while still allowing educators to set more rigorous goals above the bare minimum Student Performance: -this model holds all students to a consistent level of expectation -this model would indicate if students have met the district/boces and/or school s expectation for growth and have the knowledge and skills necessary in the course of study Teacher Development: (discussed with next slide) 15

Application of Class-wide Minimum Rigor Target Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 65 81 Y B 52 65 68 Y C 60 65 94 Y D 48 65 77 Y E 62 65 80 Y F 20 65 62 N G 54 65 92 Y H 32 65 87 Y I 12 65 58 N J 28 65 70 Y 80% of students met this classwide minimum rigor target Illustrative Sample Data Set 16

Class-wide Mastery Target Each SLO has a baseline and target for what would reflect the Mastery level of performance. Individual students either meet/do not meet the class-wide SLO target. Evaluator provides one score between 0-20 points using an approved HEDI chart. 17

Application of Class-wide Mastery Target Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 85 81 N B 52 85 68 N C 60 85 94 Y D 48 85 77 N E 62 85 80 N F 20 85 62 N G 54 85 92 Y H 32 85 87 Y I 12 85 58 N J 28 85 70 N 30% of students met this classwide mastery target Illustrative Sample Data Set 18

Analysis of the Model Alignment: -this model reflects the goal of all students demonstrating mastery of course material -this model also reflects the level of expectation when preparing students for college and careers Student Performance: -this model holds all students to a consistent level of expectation -this model would indicate if students have mastered the knowledge and skills in the course of study Teacher Development: (discussed with next slide) 19

Application of Class-wide Mastery Target Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 85 81 N B 52 85 68 N C 60 85 94 Y D 48 85 77 N E 62 85 80 N F 20 85 62 N G 54 85 92 Y H 32 85 87 Y I 12 85 58 N J 28 85 70 N 30% of students met this classwide mastery target Illustrative Sample Data Set 20

Banded/Range-based Targets Students are classified into different starting levels using whatever baseline assessment information is available (ideally multiple sources). Districts/BOCES and/or schools decide what ending level of performance meets or exceeds expectations for students at each starting level. Individual students either meet/do not meet the banded/range-based target. Evaluator provides one score between 0-20 points using an approved HEDI chart. 21

Application of Banded/Rangebased Targets Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 70 81 Y B 52 80 68 N C 60 80 94 Y D 48 75 77 Y E 62 80 80 Y F 20 70 62 N G 54 80 92 Y H 32 70 87 Y I 12 65 58 N J 28 70 70 Y Baseline Ranges and Targets Ranges on Baseline Targets 0-15 65 16-40 70 41-50 75 51+ 80 70% of students met the differentiated targets Illustrative Sample Data Set 22

Analysis of the Model Alignment: -this model aligns well with goals that are geared towards closing achievement gaps -this model also aligns well when there are tiered levels of expectations for students within a course Student Performance: -targets in this model reflect the diverse needs and performance levels found within any given classroom -varying parameters are set for minimum rigor expectations through application of this model Teacher Development: (discussed with next slide) 23

Application of Banded/Rangebased Targets Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 70 81 Y B 52 80 68 N C 60 80 94 Y D 48 75 77 Y E 62 80 80 Y F 20 70 62 N G 54 80 92 Y H 32 70 87 Y I 12 65 58 N J 28 70 70 Y Baseline Ranges and Targets Ranges on Baseline Targets 0-15 65 16-40 70 41-50 75 51+ 80 70% of students met the differentiated targets Illustrative Sample Data Set 24

Half to 100 or Closing the Gap Targets Assessments with similar scales can use the following target formula: Minimum Required Growth = (Total possible points Pre-assessment score) / 2 Target= Baseline+ Minimum Required Growth Individual students either meet/do not meet the individualized target. Evaluator provides one score between 0-20 points using an approved HEDI chart. 25

Application of Half to 100 Targets Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 65 81 Y B 52 76 68 N C 60 80 94 Y D 48 74 77 Y E 62 81 80 N F 20 60 62 Y G 54 77 92 Y H 32 66 87 Y I 12 56 58 Y J 28 64 70 Y Minimum Required Growth = (100 Pre-assessment score) / 2 Target= Baseline+ Minimum Required Growth 80% of students met the differentiated targets Illustrative Sample Data Set 26

Alignment: Analysis of Model -this model aligns well with goals that are geared towards closing achievement gaps Student Performance: -this model holds all students to a consistent level of expectation and may reflect the variety of performance levels found within any given classroom -this model may be less useful when students are first starting off in a course or entering with little-to-no content knowledge as the targets may not be rigorous enough Teacher Development: (discussed with next slide) 27

Application of Half to 100 Targets Student Baseline Target Actual Meet Target (Y/N) A 30 65 81 Y B 52 76 68 N C 60 80 94 Y D 48 74 77 Y E 62 81 80 N F 20 60 62 Y G 54 77 92 Y H 32 66 87 Y I 12 56 58 Y J 28 64 70 Y Minimum Required Growth = (100 Pre-assessment score) / 2 Target= Baseline+ Minimum Required Growth 80% of students met the differentiated targets Illustrative Sample Data Set 28

To Review 1. 2. 3. There are benefits to setting high-quality SLOs. Many things should be considered when setting targets. Various target-setting models are available and should be purposefully selected. 29

For more, search Student Learning Objectives on www.engageny.org 30

New annotated sample SLOs have been posted using the multi-state rubric The annotations indicate notes of alignment to best practice found in each SLO 31

Resources to Support SLO Updated SLO Guidance Document includes a list of all SLO implementation resources currently available on EngageNY New resources coming shortly to ensure further support for the 2013-14 school year based on feedback from the field *Be sure to look for webinars about Leading the SLO Process in Your School and Alternative Target Setting Approaches Within SLOs Implementation 32