1. Student Learning Objectives Review Team Training Marissa McClish, SLO Coordinator mmcclish@washoeschools.net Eian Gilbert, SLO Specialist egilbert@washoeschools.net Scott Reynolds, CTAC January 2016

2. 2 Review the roles and responsibilities of members Set norms for the review team Calibrate review team’s SLO analysis skills Learn tips from early implementers Build operational guidelines for the review team Objectives/Agenda

3. 3 Teacher choice Variety of methods to show growth Variety of authentic assessments Site-based Review Teams How the WCSD SLO Model is Unique

4. 4 Roles and Responsibilities

5. 5 Review the SLOs in the school Apply the quality rubric to the SLOs Provide feedback to teachers on their SLOs Support instructional processes and common understanding of the Quality Rubric Roles of Review Team

6. 6 Principal or Assistant Principal must be a member Minimum of 4 team members Make-up reflects the faculty Larger staffs utilize multiple teams Expectations

7. 7 Norm Setting

8. 8 – Be present – Make evidence-based decisions – Avoid inferences Norms for Reviewing Today

9. 9 Rating Calibration: Grade 6 Math SLO

10. 10 Review the sample SLO Independently rate the SLO on each rubric row Discuss ratings with team Adjust as needed, rooting decisions in evidence Rating a Grade 6 Math SLO SLO Form Student Data Sheet Baseline Assessment Culminating Assessment Scoring Guide Alignment Notation

11. 11 Focus Row One standard from math (6.RP.3) and one for ELA More math standards needed Explore need of RP section Rating: Learning Content Focus Row 1

12. 12 Alignment Row All but item 6a are aligned Consider more varied scenarios Baseline and Culminating Assessment are highly aligned Rating: Assessments Alignment Row 3

13. 13 Scoring and Performance Row Alignment notation and scoring guide are helpful What answers generate how many points? All items are constructed- response; many at DOK 3/4 Multiple measures for 6.RP.3 Rating: Assessments Scoring and Performance Row n/s

14. 14 Focus Row Provides names Baseline scores show need “…major and new concept...” is additional data from teacher Missing abilities Rating: Student Population Focus Row 3

15. 15 Quality Row Identifies 3 strategies Describes all three Missing the “why” for analysis of student work Has a plan for use of data Probe for DOK adjustments Rating: Instructional Strategies Quality Row 2

16. 16 Length Row 3/23 to 5/29 45 minutes per week Selected content to be measured is sufficiently attainable in two months’ time Rating: Interval of Instruction Length Row 3

17. 17 Rigor Row Most have a 1-level jump of 8 starting from 1 or 2 Scope of content is very narrow “Approaching standards” (SP.4) vs. scores of 1 and 2 Rating: Student Growth Targets Rigor Row 2

18. 18 Rating Calibration: Grade 1 Math SLO

19. 19 Review the sample SLO Independently rate the SLO on each rubric row Make a note of your rating Rating a Grade 1 Math SLO SLO Form Student Data Sheet Baseline Assessment Culminating Assessment

20. 20 Discuss ratings with team Adjust as needed, rooting decisions in evidence Rating a Grade 1 Math SLO SLO Form Student Data Sheet Baseline Assessment Culminating Assessment

21. 21 Focus Row 1.MD.4 and 1.OA.1 Standards are integrated as +/- word problems can be connected to data displays Probe further on rationale for these being pivotal Rating: Learning Content Focus Row 3

22. 22 Learning Content Resource (Source: Page 13 of Nevada Academic Content Standards in Mathematics)

23. 23 Alignment Row All items are aligned Note both data displays surpass 20 – extension Pre- and Post-Assessments are highly aligned Rating: Assessments Alignment Row 4

24. 24 Scoring and Performance Row Scoring materials are provided All items are constructed- response Multiple measures for 1.MD.4 Rating: Assessments Scoring and Performance Row 4

25. 25 Focus Row Provides names Baseline scores do not indicate a need Rationale for Learning Content is not strong (re- states OA standard; all course standards require the mathematical practices) Rating: Student Population Focus Row 1

26. 26 Quality Row Identifies 3 strategies Describes all three Provides a “why” for direct instruction and also academic conversations (in the cooperative learning section); it is missing for cooperative learning Has a plan for data use Rating: Instructional Strategies Quality Row 2

27. 27 Length Row 3/23 to 5/29 90 minutes per week Selected content to be measured is sufficiently attainable in two months’ time Rating: Interval of Instruction Length Row 3

28. 28 Rigor Row All students have met the standard Scope of standards is narrow Assessment uses only one data display Pivotal nature of 1.MD.4 (predominantly measured standard) is questionable Rating: Student Growth Targets Rigor Row 2

29. 29 Rating Calibration: Grade 8 Social Studies SLO

30. 30 Review the sample SLO Independently rate the SLO on each rubric row Discuss ratings with team Adjust as needed, rooting decisions in evidence Rating a Grade 8 SS SLO SLO Form Student Data Sheet Baseline Assessment Culminating Assessment Scoring Rubric

31. 31 Focus Row WHST.6-8.1 (a through e), RSHT.6-8.1, H2.16, C13.2 Connecting westward expansion and textual evidence District supports this as pivotal content Rating: Learning Content Focus Row 4

32. 32 Alignment Row Tasks align Rating: Assessments Alignment Row 4

33. 33 Scoring and Performance Row Provides scoring materials All higher-order and constructed response Multiple measures Rating: Assessments Scoring and Performance Row 4

34. 34 Focus Row Provides names Baseline scores show need “Classroom work and quizzes…” speak to content need Missing abilities Rating: Student Population Focus Row 3

35. 35 Quality Row Identifies 3 strategies Describes all three Missing a “why” for graphic organizers Has a plan for data use Rating: Instructional Strategies Quality Row 2

36. 36 Length Row 9/28/15 to 11/20/15 150 minutes per week Selected content to be measured is sufficiently attainable in two months’ time Rating: Interval of Instruction Length Row 3

37. 37 Rigor Row 1 point required to elevate 1 of 8 levels Roughly two scoring rows are required to improve 1 point Most jumps are two levels, requiring improvement in four areas of the rubric Rating: Student Growth Targets Rigor Row 2

38. 38 Locate the sample SLO and quality rubric Use evidence-based reasoning to determine the level of the SLO for the row(s) associated with your element from the Jigsaw. Try rating other rows Rating a MS SLO

39. 39 Focus Row Less than half the course set of standards “…targeted group performed the lowest…” (SP.4) Argumentation is writing mode most in need (LC.5) MS Rating: Learning Content Focus Row 4

40. 40 Alignment Row Most items in assessment align to selected standards (Those lacking alignment include the conventions row of rubric and W.7.8.) Baseline and culminating assessments use identical rubric and similar prompts MS Rating: Assessments Alignment Row 3

41. 41 Scoring & Performance Row Tasks are performance- oriented requiring synthesis and evaluation Some content is measured multiple times (W.7.1.a and W.7.1.c) MS Rating: Assessments Scoring & Performance Row 4

42. 42 Need Row Student names and baseline scores are given, showing a need (all 2s and 4s out of 8) Other data point to need – “Also, based on early writing samples…” (LC.5) Abilities and needs are described “…poor vocabularies” (SP.4) “…a significant number of students approaching…” (SP.4) MS Rating: Student Population Need Row 4

43. 43 Quality Row 3 strategies are identified – Analysis of student work – Word wall – Cooperative learning Each strategy is described – “…students will…” (IS.1b,2b,3b) Cooperative learning is lacking a rationale (IS.3b) A general plan for differentiation is present – “…each week…talk about student progress…” (IS.4) MS Rating: Instructional Strategies Quality Row 2

44. 44 Length Row Suggested interval is used (2/9 to 5/19) Depth and complexity is allowed for given the total instructional time MS Rating: Interval of Instruction Length Row 3

45. 45 Rigor Row Baseline data and growth targets show the targets are sufficiently rigorous Additional data in the rationale demonstrating why the rigor is high is needed (Grades 6-11) MS Rating: Student Growth Targets Rigor Row 3

46. 46 Insert PGS Here

47. www.avantilearning.net | ©2014 Avanti Learning and Technology Innovations Home Page Click on the SLO approval tab to start

48. www.avantilearning.net | ©2014 Avanti Learning and Technology Innovations Teacher List A list of all of your assigned teachers will appear In this column, you can tell the current status is of the SLO. This column identifies the last date of SLO activity Review team members will be notified via email when an SLO is ready to review

49. www.avantilearning.net | ©2014 Avanti Learning and Technology Innovations To open an SLO, simply click on the teacher’s name This page will appear If a review has been started on an element, it will appear yellow When done with an element, click on the check mark on the far right hand side of each element. This will change the color of the icon to green View of Quality rubric landing page

50. www.avantilearning.net | ©2014 Avanti Learning and Technology Innovations Click on any element to review Open an Element to Review

51. www.avantilearning.net | ©2014 Avanti Learning and Technology Innovations Element plus rubric The rubric content will appear at the bottom of screen The content written by the teacher will appear at the top of the page

52. www.avantilearning.net | ©2014 Avanti Learning and Technology Innovations Simply click on the EDIT button If you make a mistake and wish to remove your review, click delete to remove To add your review…

53. www.avantilearning.net | ©2014 Avanti Learning and Technology Innovations To begin, select the appropriate number from the drop-down menu To add a quality review… Then, add your comments in the block to the right Remember to click on SAVE to save your work

54. 54 Early Learnings

55. 55 Calendar due dates for staff, working backward from implementation start Ensure reasonable yet timely turnaround Build in collaborative time Balance virtual and in-person time Remember re-reads and review team’s SLOs Early Learnings

56. 56 Feedback is formative, not evaluative Stay focused on what is in the SLO Project the SLO when in group meetings Consider going to a grade level to share feedback Use the majority rules approach to help reviews Early Learnings

57. 57 Count the number of “unique SLO’s on site” divvy up among Review Teams Inter-departmental Reviewing is valuable Spread out Review (for example, come in early for 45 for a week) Early Learnings

58. 58 Guidelines Development

59. 59 Reviews will occur in two stages: 1.Teams will review the Learning Content and Assessments as a first step to ensure high quality assessments will be used. Administrators may opt to complete this step on their own. 2.The remainder of the SLO will be reviewed for final approval Review Process

60. 60 Take some time with your team to complete and/or review the guidelines document. Guidelines Development

61. 61 – Be present – Make evidence-based decisions – Ensure feedback is evidence based/ be transparent that this is not personal – Maintain confidentiality Norms