If your kids fail STAAR, you are not going to lose points on your TTESS ratings.
If your kids don't grow and improve, you are not going to lose points on your TTESS ratings.
If your kids pass STAAR, you don't get extra points on your TTESS ratings.
If your kids make exponential growth, you are not going to get extra points on your TTESS ratings.
Of course, these conditions might be correlated to your instructional expertise, but they are not causational.
After attending the Trainer of Trainer session at Region 10 last month, I have a whole new perspective about what SLO's are about. My first reflection is that they aren't really named well. Student Learning Objectives really aren't about students.
SLO's are about how teachers are learning and growing. SLO's represent a fundamental shift away from data analysis of student performance to a focus on instructional analysis. That's a fancy way of saying that SLO's are not about whether or not the kids meet the learning targets. It doesn't matter if the teacher sets the targets too high and the students fail to meet the expectations. It doesn't matter if the teacher sets the targets too low and the kids knock the top out of the expectations. It doesn't matter if the teacher says, "I just didn't have low kids this year." It doesn't matter if the teacher says, "Well, I'm just that good at what I do."
Instead, SLO's are about what the teacher learns about his or her own instructional practices.
And it's high time that we take the blame off of students and teachers and place emphasis about what we are going to do about the realities of the everyday struggles we all face. And not just for those who fail STAAR tests.
Hattie (2009) explains that the most powerful feedback in the educational equation is the feedback the teacher receives from the students about his/her own teaching and how that data is used to make instructional adjustments to the teaching practices. SLO's allow us the freedom to examine one foundational skill at a time that honor:
- who our students are when we get them (regardless of the community and SES and culture and race, and...)
- what we are learning about the teaching practice/science/art,
- and what we can do to increase our instructional sophistication to address the complex needs of our students.
The SLO process helps teachers pinpoint a critical component in their content area. The next step allows teachers to name the reality of how their students typically arrive by creating an Initial Skill Profile.Which seems fair. When I finished my student teaching in a 5th grade classroom at a lower SES school, I substituted in a higher SES school the next day. The kids were miles apart in their reading levels and performance. While that inequity isn't ok or fair, it's true. And while that inequity is true, it's not ok to let it remain such a gap. We must do something about it. SLO's allow teachers the freedom to admit where their kids are with no excuses or blame. The next step in the SLO process allows teachers to pinpoint where kids could be if effective instructional interventions and solutions are applied. The final part of the SLO process allows the teacher to track the students over time in this very specific area and reflect on how his/her teaching evolves to impact all students with the creation of the Targeted Skill Profile.
But the part I like the best? We are not just looking at who passes a test. We are looking at how a kid who entered the grade level for this specific skill waaaaay below typical performance could grow over time by specifically naming the progression of learning throughout the year. And the teacher isn't nailed if the student didn't get there. The discussion is about what was working and what was learned by the teacher about moving that student forward.
I have a teacher friend who has four kids that failed the recent fifth grade test. Three of those kids consistently score in the 30's on benchmarks. Are those kids going to pass fifth grade STAAR? Probably not. But what have they learned? How have they grown? And what has the teacher learned about techniques and resources that worked the best to get them there? SLO's help teachers look at students at five different entry points (Well above typical, above typical, typical, below typical, and well below typical) and see how far they can progress over time.
Looking at the levels of students described in the skill profiles reminds me of a school I worked in that had really high scores on AP Exams and state assessments. All students need to progress, even the ones at the top. Are the students doing well because of who they already are when they enter your classroom? Or have they grown because of your support and increased sophistication and learning as a practicing teacher-learner?
The last point I'd like to review is how the SLO 20% is rated. Here's the form principals use. Most say it takes about 5 minutes to score.
Note that each rating is to be considered holistically. Note that the rubric is focused on teacher behaviors. It is entirely possible that a teacher meets the first three bullets of a Distinguished rating, but not the last two. The rating is based on the whole SLO process and NOT hinged solely on student performance. And doesn't it make sense that if we are learning to be better teachers that students would improve? The rating is based on a discussion about what the teacher has learned about effective instructional practices that cause student growth. Of course we want students to grow; but SLO's are about what teachers can learn and do to make that happen.
You shouldn't be worried. You should be relieved and excited about what you are about to learn and the innovations you will find that cause your students to grow.
Author. (2018). Texas student learning objectives trainer of trainers manual. Texas Education Agency. Slide 99.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment