Student
Growth Objectives
By: Melissa Hancock
Teachers in New
Jersey are in the midst of a major change in how they are evaluated. One portion of this new evaluation system is
the creation and monitoring of Student Growth Objectives (SGOs). As part of the TEACHNJ Act, all teachers in
the state must create between one and two of these SGOs with approval of their
principal. Student Growth Objectives are
designed to be long-term academic goals.
Teachers can set them for all of their students or a specific sub-group
of students. Overall, SGOs are designed
to help teachers assess where their students are and where they want them to be
at the end of instruction.
The number of SGOs
set is based on whether the teacher teaches a “Tested Grade and Subject” or
not. “Tested Grades and Subjects” are
fourth through eighth grade Language Arts and Mathematics. Teachers who teach these subject areas only
need to create one SGO because they will also have a Student Growth Percentile
(SGP) score that is based on their NJASK standardized test scores. Any teacher that does not teach these grades
or subjects must prepare two SGOs. For
both groups, the SGO score will count as 15% of their annual summative performance
rating (NJDOE, 2013).
There are several
keys to setting SGOs. According to the
state, the goals should be “SMART” or:
specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely. In order to be specific, the objective should
identify a skill or content students need to master. It must be measurable because teachers need
to be able to identify a way to measure the results. In order for it to be achievable, there must
be current student data available. It
should be relevant in that it reflects the standards of the content area or
course being taught. Finally, it should
be timely in that the objective can be accomplished in the time frame set forth
(NJDOE, 2013).
There are two
types of SGOs that can be set, general or specific. One principal I spoke with said that her
district is recommending teachers set one of each, but that it is not
required. If you choose to set a general
SGO, you are using a broad scope.
General SGOs usually include all or large portions of the curriculum and
all or most of your students. Specific
SGOs may focus on a certain subgroup of your students or a specific skill or
content standard. Either type of SGO
can also be tiered. This means that you
can set different expectations for different groups of students based on their
preparation level. For example, you can
take your baseline data and determine how many of your students are high,
medium, or low in regard to their preparedness and set differing goals for each
group. If you have stark contrasts in
the levels of your students, you should consider using tiered objectives
(NJDOE, 2013).
One of the most
important parts of developing an SGO is to be sure the goal is appropriate to
the level of the students. There are
several options for measurement tools including traditional pre and post tests,
performance assessments, and portfolio assessments. The New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) suggests
teachers use caution when using a pretest and posttest for SGOs because they
are often arbitrary evaluations that are weak in establishing baseline
data. If using this model, teachers
would need to have done an item-by-item analysis of the test and would have
hopefully administered the test many times before and thoroughly analyzed the
data. A portfolio assessment is able to
play to every child’s strengths and allows for multiple measures of
proficiency. In my opinion, it is a
better measure of ability, baseline, and growth and paints a robust picture of
where students are. Performance
assessments are another option because they allow teachers to assess both
process and product. These might be
helpful in content areas like science, music, art, and physical education
(NJEA, 2013).
When analyzing
your baseline data, you should see what the students can do when they come into
your classroom. If they can’t perform
the desired task or are missing key prerequisite skills, you should lower your
target percentage. The District
Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) should set the range of percentages from
one level to the next, but the NJEA suggested a range of 10-15%. This is the range of what the difference
would be between a score of full and a score of exceptional or partial. However, it is important that teachers are
allowed to set their own target (full) percentage, because they know the
students best. If the administration
tries to set a standard target percentage, this would be an arbitrary number
and not acceptable for evaluation according to the NJEA (NJEA, 2013).
Once the baseline
data has been assessed, it is time to begin writing the SGO. The SGO will include all grade levels
covered, the interval of time, and a rationale for the SGO. This should include
the standards being covered, why they are important, and an explanation of the
assessments to be used and how they will be used. The actual SGO is written indicating the target
percentage of students and how much they will improve on the assessment. Baseline data should be included as to
student levels at the beginning of the year and any other data relevant to
student progress such as attendance, socioeconomic status, and etc. In the scoring plan, the target percentage,
or full percentage, is calculated by the teacher, who also calculates the other
percentages (exceptional, partial, and insufficient) based on the range set by
the DEAC (NJDOE, 2013).
This year the SGOs must be set by November 15th. In order for the SGO to be finalized, it must
be agreed upon by both the teacher and the building principal. Progress is then tracked periodically
throughout the year. This should include
at a minimum of a mid-year assessment and then a final assessment at the end of
the year (NJDOE, 2013). I suggest all
teachers do a mid-year assessment so there are no surprises at the end of the
year. A mid-year assessment is also
important because if a teacher discovers his or her SGO was out of line,
possibly because of poor baseline data, it can only be revised through February
15th. After that point, the
SGO must stand as it is and will be used to determine teacher effectiveness.
At the end of the year, the final score is calculated
by the principal. However, I suggest
that all teachers calculate their own final score as well. Teachers should bring their scored
assessments, portfolios, or performance rubrics with them to their final
meeting. It is important for all
teachers to come to the meeting prepared with both their evidence and their own
calculated scores. Their goal is a score
of full (3); and this will be used for determining the SGO percentage of the
summative evaluation (NJDOE, 2013).
If used properly, SGOs can help teachers by allowing
them to focus on content that actually matters, use formative assessments to
drive their instruction, and to differentiate instruction to meet individual
needs (NJEA, 2013). My concern is that
teachers in different districts are receiving different amounts of training on
the development and monitoring of SGOs.
Some administrators are saying the whole process is really very simple, while
others are stressing the seriousness of needing to set achievable and
measurable goals. Overall, I believe
that setting SGOs can be helpful, but I wish teachers in every district had
been given the opportunity to pilot the system for a year before they were
fully implemented and used as a basis for evaluating teacher effectiveness.
References:
New Jersey
Education Association. (8 Oct
2013). Student Growth Objectives
[PowerPoint Slides].
New Jersey
Department of Education. (2013). “Achieve New Jersey for Teachers: Student Growth Objectives.” Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/objectives.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment