Maryland Student Learning ObjectiveStandards for Writing (Pre-K)

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: Standards for Writing (Pre-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Standards for Writing (Pre-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 without stakes 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: Standards of Writing (Pre-K)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 ELEMENTSeventy-five percent of pre-kindergarten students will increase two levels or more on writing informative/explanatory texts.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe statement provides specific targets for students.

The summary statement is helpful in providing an introductory orientation 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 for this SLO:

___ out of ___ students are unable to use a combination of drawing, dictating, or developmentally appropriate writing to state information on a topic

Assessment:

AACPS developed writing rubric

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author provides a format for listing baseline data, though the data are missing. The SLO references a writing rubric as the assessment method, though it is not available for review.

The author identifies an assessment, but does not provide results. What additional data sources are available that would help explain student starting points?

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 ELEMENTAll Students: pre-kindergarten is an invention for students with identified school readiness needs

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

The author includes a general statement of why students enroll in pre-kindergarten.

Identifying the current performance levels of the students would strengthen this SLO. For example, the author might consider attaching a roster of students which delineates their baseline levels of learning in relation to the selected content and provides 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 ELEMENTW2 CCR Anchor Standard

Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content

PK W2 Use a combination of drawing, dictating, or developmentally appropriate writing to state information on a topic.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author incudes a Common Core standard for Maryland, along with the vertically aligned kindergarten standard.

To strengthen this element, the author could indicate how focusing on the selected content will affect student readiness for kindergarten. He or she also could consider including more pre-kindergarten standards, such as additional writing standards or reading standards. Doing so would increase the rigor of the SLO.

9

Instructional IntervalStandardized Name

Interval of InstructionJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

Describe the instructional period for this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTWriting sample taken in September (Unit 1 of OWL)

Writing sample taken in May (Unit 7 of OWL)

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author provides a plan for administering assessments, which would benefit from specific start and stop dates for the instructional interval.

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. For example, September 1 – May 31 would allow nine months of instruction, whereas September 30 – May 1 would provide seven months of instruction. 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 ELEMENTStudents will use a combination of drawing, dictating, or developmentally appropriate writing to identify the topic and name some information about the topic.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe SLO includes a task, though specific student targets are not available. A succinct target statement, more along the lines of the wording in the “Evidence of Growth” section, would increase clarity.

As previously noted, the SLO would be improved by including a roster of students with individual baseline and targets. How do the baseline data inform the selection of targets? The author should include an explanation for why these targets are both rigorous and attainable.

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

75% will increase by at least two levels on the writing rubric

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

Without seeing the assessments and rubric(s), those administering this SLO would have difficulty determining the degree of alignment between the assessments and the standards, and between one assessment and another. Analyzing the assessments and rubric(s) would also help determine the degree of rigor of the targets.

Consider clarifying that 75% of the students need to reach the target.

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 ELEMENTThe targeted writing skill will help teachers focus writing instruction to ensure that pre-kindergarten students gain adequate mastery of writing on a topic. Students need to demonstrate increasing sophistication in all aspects of writing in order to enter kindergarten ready to learn.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSSignaling its value, the SLO provides a general description of how the skills learned in pre-kindergarten align with the skills needed in subsequent grades. However, without student baseline data, it is difficult to determine if the SLO is rigorous and the targets are appropriate.

The author might consider stating how baseline data demonstrate that these are the right targets. Then, he or she might justify why achieving the specific targets for the selected standards is critical for the students.

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 ELEMENTFor naming a topic(with modeling and support):

• recognize that writing conveys meaning

• after discussion apply the prewriting and planning stages of the writing process to an informative piece

• establish and build upon a personal schema related to a topic or book via attending to a learning experience (e.g. reading of informational/expository text, and hands on experience) in order to gain a deeper level of knowledge about a topic or book

• after discussion name the topic

For supplying some facts about the topic (with modeling and support):

• participate in discussion to gather and communicate information related to the topic/text

• express orally or via drawing, dictation or developmentally appropriate writing several facts that are all related to the topic

• generate ideas by using letter like shapes, symbols, and letters, dictating words and phrases, and using drawings

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author describes strategies in detail, providing a picture of what the instructional approach will emphasize.

What research or other evidence supports the use of these strategies? The author might consider elaborating on how monitoring student progress will allow the teacher to adjust instructional 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 ELEMENTThe author of the SLO left this blank.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author did not complete this section of the SLO, which provides an opportunity to identify professional development that would help teachers support student progress toward SLO goals.

Overview of Maryland Standards for Writing (Pre-K)The SLO should list the targeted students, identify their baseline achievement and provide an analysis of the baseline achievement data. Doing so would help demonstrate specific areas of student need and make it possible to follow individual student progress. Due to the absence of the baseline scores and rubric, the specified targets are difficult to evaluate for rigor, but instructional strategies enumerated by the author provide a detailed approach to improving student learning.

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.