5 Objective is enough that it captures the major content of an extended instructional period. Objective is too for the instructional interval and needs to be narrowed OR too narrow and needs to be broadened. Objective will not cover the instructional interval specified. 6 Objective is focused enough that it can be measured. Objective is not fully measurable, or only partially measurable. Objective is too vague or too widely focused and cannot be easily measured. Aligned Standards 7 Standards are aligned with the objective and can be measured by the stated objective. Standards are partially or minimally aligned with the objective (ignoring other more aligned standards). Standards are not aligned with the objective and will not be adequately or appropriately measured by the stated objective. 8 Standards identified represent appropriate grade level or grade span standards. Standards identified represent mostly appropriate grade level or grade span standards. Standards identified do not represent the appropriate grade level or grade span standards. 9 Grade level literacy or numeracy standards are included/integrated, when applicable. Grade level literacy or numeracy standards are partially or minimally included/integrated, when applicable. Does not include the integration of grade level literacy and/or numeracy standards, when applicable. Baseline Data and Targets Targets identify the expected outcomes by the end of the instructional period for the whole class as well as for different subgroups, as appropriate. Targets do not clearly defining expected performance by class or subgroup. More specificity is needed. Subgroup targets may be incomplete or missing. Targets are missing or not linked to expected student performance at the end of the instructional interval. Subgroup targets may be missing. Appropriate baseline data has been used to establish and differentiate expected performance. Baseline data is incomplete or not clearly in support of the targets established. Baseline data is missing and/or baseline data does not support the targets for expected performance. The targets established for the class/subgroups of students (as appropriate) are realistic and attainable but rigorous as well. Targets will move students who are performing behind their peers closer to “catching up” or achieving grade level performance. The targets established are EITHER realistic and attainable OR rigorous. Targets may not move students who are performing behind their peers closer to “catching up” or achieving grade level performance. Targets established for the class/subgroups are not realistic or rigorous. Targets do not represent “catch up” growth for the lowest performing subgroup, but instead maintain the achievement gap.
The rationale for targets explains how specific targets were determined, including (as appropriate): Available baseline data Historical data Rates of expected progress (if available) The rationale is not or compelling in terms of explaining how targets relate to available data. The targets do not link clearly with the data considered by the teacher. The rationale is missing or deficient in linking the targets to the data. The rationale may ignore certain data points or is unsupported by the data shown. Quality of Evidence and Assessments Measure(s) meets the criteria for high quality assessments or evidence as established by LEA. Measures meet some of the criteria for high quality assessments or evidence as established by LEA. Measures do not meet the criteria for high quality assessments or evidence as established by LEA. If a common assessment is not available, teacher has defined evidence measures that are aligned to the Essential Learning and standards, and can be used to establish baseline data. Teacher has defined the evidence measure but it is not clearly linked to the Essential Learning and aligned standards. Teacher has not clearly defined evidence measures (and a common assessment is not available). If the evidence of student performance e is to be measured using a performance task, a clear rubric for judging such performance should be provided, clearly reflecting the student objective and aligned standards. A rubric is included but is incomplete or not clearly linked to the student objective/aligned standards. A rubric is not included. Uses a body of evidence, not just one test, if appropriate. Evidence measures must be clearly defined and linked strongly to student objectives/aligned with standards. Uses a body of evidence but the evidence measures are not clearly defined/explained or are not clearly linked to student objectives/aligned with standards. Does not include a body of evidence and over-relies on one assessment. No apparent ink between student objective/aligned standards and evidence measures.
LEA Guidance The SLO Quality Review rubric will be useful in guiding administrators and teachers through the SLO process. However, this tool can be even more useful if you make the tool specifically reflective of your LEA policies and priorities. In order for this tool to be as effective as possible, please work through the series of questions below and consider local revisions/additions to the rubric. LEA/School Specific Question If yes, then… Has your LEA/school outlined or given specific parameters for Essential learning per grade/content area? Review line 1 in the rubric and add language to address LEA guidance on Essential Learning. Does your LEA/school have identified priorities that should be addressed by an SLO? Review line 4 in the rubric and add language about the specific priorities that must be addressed. Does your LEA/school have identified data that should be addressed by an SLO? Review line 4 in the rubric and add language about the specific data that must be addressed. Has your LEA/school identified exactly what standards should guide every grade/content area? Review line 7, 8, and 9 in the rubric to see if the language about standards should be more specific. Has your LEA/school defined specific subgroups that must be included in the SLO targets? Do you have specific guidance how to define subgroups? Review line 10 and 12 in the rubric to check for subgroup language and whether the whole class vs. subgroups makes sense, or if subgroups can be more clearly defined. Does the term “catch up” growth make sense locally or do you have other ways of referring to closing achievement gaps? Has your LEA/school defined “appropriate” baseline data? Are there certain data sources a teacher must consider? Have you defined historical data? Are there certain historical data sources that must be included? Review line 11 and 13 in the rubric to check whether “appropriate” needs to be defined or more specific/exact language can be used. Has your LEA/school defined criteria for high quality assessments? Review line 14 in the rubric to edit language to mirror local criteria. Will your LEA/school mandate the use of any common assessments? If so, what are they and for which grades/content areas? Review line 15 in the rubric to edit language to mirror local guidance on common assessments. Will your LEA/school permit the use of performance assessments as acceptable SLO evidence? Review line 16 in the rubric to edit language to mirror local guidance on performance assessments.