The Colorado Department of Education

Offices | Staff Contacts | Colorado.gov

Student Learning Outcomes: DRAFT Guidance


Step 5: Weight and combine the results of the multiple measures to get a single student outcomes score for educator evaluation

Step-by-Step Guide

Districts that have categorized teachers in Step 3 can now determine how each of the selected measures will be weighted. In collaboration with teachers, principals and associations where applicable, districts determine the weights for each of the multiple measures. Districts are encouraged to include teachers, principals and associations in determining the weights for each of the multiple measures. By categorizing and assigning standard weights for each group of teachers, districts are providing district level guidance and increasing comparability.

To assist districts in visualizing the combination of multiple measures and the impact that weighting has on the overall student learning outcomes score for use in educator evaluation, CDE has developed an Excel tool for use by the personnel evaluation committee and educators (Click here to access the CDE Student Learning Outcomes Excel Tool). In the below examples for Brittany and Henry, examples are given to show how the CDE Student Learning Outcomes Excel Tool is used to determine a final student learning outcomes score.

The statute and rules do not specify a minimum weight for either individual or collective attribution measures. Exhibit S7 is an example of the weights set for Brittany’s student learning outcomes at the beginning of the school year.

Caution about weighting collective attribution

A balanced amount of collective attribution enhances the investment of teachers in the success of students on a broader range of student learning outcomes, thus contributing to improved student learning. This is especially true when teachers share attribution with one or more teachers who are on a teacher team with them. Collective attribution with teacher teams not only promotes collaboration among teachers, but also increases the element of evaluation fairness, since each teacher on the team has a significant measure of influence on student outcomes. However, an overly high percentage of collective attribution will decrease the ability at the school or district level to recognize high-performing teachers (who may be held back by the average) and to identify struggling teachers (who may be “propped up” by the average). Therefore, it is imperative that districts understand the importance of finding the right balance between collective and individual attribution.

Step-by-step examples of calculating the final student learning outcomes scores
 (CDE has designed a Student Learning Outcomes Tool in Excel to assist with this process)
Brittany
Combine multiple student learning outcomes to determine a final student learning outcomes score:


1. Using the weighted pie chart (Exhibits S7 and S8 below), convert weight percentages for each measure to a decimal value.
(e.g. 15% = .15)

For steps 2 through 5, refer to Exhibit S8 for an example.
2. Multiply student learning outcome x weight to find the weighted score for each measure.
(e.g. for reading: 3 x .10 = .30)

3. Add weighted scores from each measure to find the subtotal.
(e.g. in the raw score column: .30 + . 60 + .45 + .15 = 1.50)

4. Multiply the subtotal by 2 to calculate the final score. (Reason: since the weighted scores only total to 50%, multiplying by 2 produces an overall score).
(e.g. final score = 2 x 1.50 = 3.00)

5. Apply the final score to the overall student learning outcomes rating scale in Exhibit S10 to determine the final combined student outcomes rating.
(e.g. 3.00 in the last column is between 2.50 and 3.49, the expected student learning outcomes range)

Exhibit S7. Brittany's pie chart with weighted multiple measures

 

Exhibit S8. Combining assessments for Brittany, elementary (5th grade)

Student Learning Measure

Student Score

Student Learning Outcome Score

Weight

Weighted Score
Reading (Individual) 80% met their targets (see footnote *1) 3 .10 .30
Writing SLO (Individual) 76% met their targets 3 .20 .60
Reading, Writing, Math TCAP CGM (Individual) Combined MGP = 52 (see footnote *2) 3 .15 .45
Science SLO TCAP (Collective) 70% met their targets 2 .05 .15
Calculated Weighted Average Subtotal 1.50
Subtotal X 2 = Overall SCORE 3.00
FINAL Combined Student Learning Outcome Rating Expected Student Learning Outcomes

*1 See Exhibit S5, Scale for Brittany’s Student Learning Objectives (in Step 4)
*2 See Exhibit S6a, Scale for state summative test (in Step 4)

Exhibit S9. Sample student learning outcomes scale

Much lower than expected student learning outcomes

Lower than expected student learning outcomes

Expected student learning outcomes

Above expected student learning outcomes

1.00 to 1.49

 1.50 to 2.49 2.50 to 3.49

(Brittany 3.00)

 3.50 to 4.00

Example:

Brittany's final student learning outcome rating:

Each of Brittany’s student learning measures was given a student learning outcome score. Each measure’s score was multiplied by the weight set by her district or administrator to give a weighted score. All weighted scores were added together to determine the subtotal. Brittany’s subtotal was multiplied by 2 for an overall score. The overall score of 3.00 was applied to the final student learning outcomes rating scale, earning Brittany a final student learning outcomes score of “expected learning outcomes.” In step 6, Brittany’s final student learning outcomes score will be combined with her final professional practices rating to determine her overall evaluation rating.

Student Learning Outcomes Tool: Example-Brittany: This example shows how CDE Student Learning Outcomes Tool could be used in the determining Brittany's final student learning outcome rating.

Henry

Exhibit S10. Henry's pie chart with weighted multiple measures

 Exhibit S11. Combining assessments for Henry, high school social studies (10th grade)

Student Outcomes Learning Measures

Student Score

Student Learning Outcomes Score

Weight

Weighted Score
EOY Social Studies Exam SLO More than 87% meet or exceeded objective (see footnote *1) 4 .25 1.00
Social Studies Project SLO More than 80% met or exceeded objective 3 .15 .45
10th Grade Writing TCAP MGP = 57 (see footnote *2) 3 .10 .30
Calculated Weighted Average Subtotal 1.75
Subtotal X 2 = Overall SCORE 3.50
FINAL Combined Student Learning Outcome Rating Above Expected Student Learning Outcomes


*1 See Exhibit S3, Principal and teacher SLO scale for EOY exam (in Step 4)
*2 See Exhibit S6b, Scale for state summative test (in Step 4)

Exhibit S12. Sample student learning outcomes scale

Much lower than expected student learning outcomes

Lower than expected student learning outcomes

Expected student learning outcomes

Above expected student learning outcomes
1.00 to 1.49 1.50 to 2.49 2.50 to 3.49 .3.50 to 4.00
(Henry 3.50)

Example:

Henry's final student learning outcomes rating:

Each of Henry’s student learning measures was given a student learning outcomes score. Each measure’s score was multiplied by the weight set by the principal to give a weighted score. All weighted scores were added together to determine the subtotal. Henry’s subtotal was multiplied by 2 in order to find the overall score. The overall score of 3.50 was applied to the final student learning outcomes rating scale, earning Henry a final student learning outcomes rating of above expected student learning outcomes. In step 6, Henry’s final student learning outcomes rating will be combined with his final professional practices rating to determine his overall evaluation rating.

Student Learning Outcomes Tool: Example-Henry: This example shows how the CDE Student Learning Outcomes Excel Tool could be used in the determining Henry's final student learning outcome rating.

>  Ask questions or provide feedback            >  Go to Step 6