New York State Student Learning Objective Template



New York State Student Learning Objective Template

English as a Second Language – NYSESLAT Assessment SLO

Name___________________________________________ School______________________________________________

|All SLOs MUST include the following basic components: |Annotated SLO Rubric |

|Population |These are the students assigned to the course section(s) or elementary pull-out group in this SLO - all students who are assigned to the course section(s)/group must be included in the |Quality Rating 2 Criteria |

| |SLO. (Full class rosters of all students must be provided for all included course sections/groups.) |Provides course sections included in the |

| |Include the following information here: language, ethnicity, free/reduced lunch status, disability status, SIFE status, and any other information about the students that you think is |SLO |

| |relevant to understanding their growth. |Includes all students in selected course |

| | |sections |

| | |Provides students names and/or ID numbers |

| | |for all students in the SLO |

|Learning Content |What is being taught over the instructional period covered? Common Core/National/State standards? Will this goal apply to all standards applicable to a course or just to specific priority|Quality Rating 2 Criteria |

| |standards? |Identifies course name |

| |Secondary Course Name: ________________________________________________ |Uses appropriate body of standards( Common |

| |Elementary: ESL Grade(s) __________ Level (s) ______________________________ |Core, national, state, local) |

| |Source of Standards: NYS Learning Standards for English as a Second Language (2004) |Names the exact standards, performance |

| |Standards and Performance Indicators: |indicators, etc. |

| |Since the NYSESLAT Assessment is still based upon the NYS Learning Standards for English as a Second Language, those grade-level standards and performance indicators must be listed here. |Quality Rating 3 Criteria |

| |You can find them here for all grade bands: |Meets Quality 2 Rating criteria |

| | |Selects specific and measurable standard, |

| | |indicators, etc. |

| | |Selects the most important standards, |

| | |indicators, etc, for the course |

| | |Includes Common Core standards to |

| | |supplement NYS Learning Standards for |

| | |courses other that ELA or math( e.g., |

| | |Literacy in History/Social Studies, |

| | |Science, and Technical Subjects) |

| | |Aligns to district and/or school |

| | |priorities* |

| | |Aligns to future coursework, as well as |

| | |college and career readiness.* |

| | |*Only one of these criteria must be met in |

| | |addition to the other criteria for Quality |

| | |Rating 3. |

|Interval of |What is the instructional period covered (if not a year, rationale for semester/quarter/etc)? |Quality Rating 2 Criteria |

|Instructional Time | |Indicates a clear start and end date |

| |This Student Learning Objective begins on BEDS day, October 2, 2013 and will conclude on May 16, 2014. |Provides a rationale if the interval is |

| | |less than one year |

| | | |

| | | |

|Evidence | What specific assessment(s) will be used to measure this goal? The assessment must align to the learning content of the course. |Quality Rating 2 Criteria |

| |Pre-Assessment: NYSESLAT Composite Scaled Score results from 2013. |Identifies pre-assessment(s) and summative |

| |Summative Assessment: NYSESLAT Composite Scaled Score results from 2014. |assessment(s) |

| | |Selects summative assessments from either |

| | |the State-approved list or those developed |

| |This Student Learning Objective offers accommodations as legally required and appropriate for all students with current Individual Educational Plans (IEPs) and Section 504 Accommodation |and approved by the district/BOCES, and |

| |Plans identified within my roster(s). |supported by superintendent’s certification|

| |To ensure that this Student Learning Objective (SLO) is evaluated fairly and equitably and those with vested interest are not scoring those summative assessments, I will use the district |of rigor and comparability |

| |developed process to score the speaking and writing portions of the NYSESLAT. In this process, ESL teachers are assigned to test other teacher’s students. The listening and reading |Offers accommodations as legally required |

| |portions are scored by MORIC. |and appropriate. |

| | |Ensures that those with a vested interest |

| | |are not scoring summative assessments |

| | |Quality Rating 3 Criteria |

| | |Meets Quality 2 Rating criteria |

| | |Aligns tightly to the selected learning |

| | |content using authentic measures |

| | |Demands higher order thinking of students |

| | |Selects pre-assessment form either the |

| | |State-approved list or those developed by |

| | |the district/ BOCES, and supported by the |

| | |superintendent’s approval for |

| | |comparability.* |

| | |Provides an opportunity for real-world |

| | |application of knowledge and skills.* |

| | |Includes a majority of constructed response|

| | |and /or performance measures.* |

| | |Measures a majority of the learning content|

| | |standards, indicators, etc. in more than |

| | |one way.* |

| | |*Only one of these criteria must be met in |

| | |addition to the other criteria for Quality |

| | |Rating 3 |

|Baseline |What is the starting level of students’ knowledge of the learning content at the beginning of the instructional period? |Quality Rating 2 Criteria |

| |You can write “See attached roster” here and attach a table of the students in this group with their 2013 NYSESLAT scores. To strengthen your SLO, provide a general analysis of the |Describes how students performed on the |

| |weaknesses and strengths of your students that you will address during the year. Although you are reporting composite scores, this is a good place to differentiate among your students |identified pre-assessment(s) |

| |using raw score data. |Provides a baseline score for each student |

| | |in the SLO |

| | |Quality Rating 3 Criteria |

| | |Meets Quality 2 Rating criteria |

| | |Indicates via pre-assessment data a clear |

| | |need for focusing on this learning content |

| | |Uses multiple data sources (in addition to |

| | |pre-assessment data) to set appropriate |

| | |targets, make instructional decisions, and |

| | |drive student growth. |

|Target(s) |What is the expected outcome (target) of students’ level of knowledge of the learning content at the end of the instructional period? |Quality Rating 2 Criteria |

| |At least 80% of students will meet their specific targets. These goals were differentiated based on NYSESLAT pre-assessment scores and other data. Ranges for targets were assigned using |Provides target statement |

| |the following: |Provides a specific growth goal for each |

| |Use the 2013-2014 NYSESLAT Target Ranges for SLOs Table to set your students’ targets. |student |

| |Teachers have to determine their own targets here based on each students’ 2013 scores and any other student data the teacher analyzes. Each teacher will use data to decide which target |Sets targets consistent with the |

| |group each student is placed in. However, target ranges must be the same across the grade level, ie. All ESL teachers who teach first graders will have to agree on the target score ranges|district-level expectations for target |

| |for 1st grade ESL. Proficiency levels may be used, but do not have to be used. |setting in the grade/subject |

| | |Quality Rating 3 Criteria |

| | |Meets Quality 2 Rating criteria |

| | |Requires students to make at least a |

| | |year’s growth in a year’s time, with |

| | |students below grade level being required |

| | |to grow more than a year’s growth in a |

| | |year’s time |

| | |Requires 80% or more of students, including|

| | |special populations, to meet their |

| | |individual goals |

| | |Includes goals for special students |

| | |populations that are equally challenging |

| | |and rigorous as those for other students, |

| | |considering each student’s starting points |

|HEDI Scoring |How will evaluators determine what range of student performance “meets” the goal (effective) versus “well-below” (ineffective), “below” (developing), and “well-above” (highly effective)? |Quality Rating 2 Criteria |

| |HEDI scoring based on percentage of student growth. |Categorizes all possible scoring result in |

| |Highly Effective: 93-100% of students meet or exceed their target goals. |the HEDI structure such that: |

| |Effective: 80-89% of students meet or exceed their target goals. |Highly Effective = exceeds district |

| |Developing: 50-79% of students meet or exceed their target goals. |expectations |

| |Ineffective: 0-49% of students meet or exceed their target goals. |Effective= meets district expectations |

| | |Developing= is below district expectations |

| | |Ineffective= is well below district |

| | |expectations |

| | |Is mathematically possible for the teacher |

| | |to obtain every point value within a rating|

| | |category |

| | |Allocates points clearly and objectively |

| | |within the HEDI rating category |

| | |Quality Rating 3 Criteria |

| | |Meets Quality 2 Rating criteria |

| | |Requires 80% or more of students, including|

| | |special populations, to meet their |

| | |individual goals to earn 9 points (minimum |

| | |rating in the “effective” category). |

| | |Defines HEDI rating categories that are |

| | |rigorous, attainable, and in-line with |

| | |district growth expectations or goals. |

| | |Includes special populations explicitly in |

| | |the HEDI structure |

| |HIGHLY EFFECTIVE |EFFECTIVE |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download