Dear Colleagues
I am sure you are all giving 110% to determine “rigorous, but attainable” growth targets for your students. Many teachers got SLOs back from administration to revise because principals allege that the growth targets are “not rigorous” or don’t have enough students at “passing” by the post-test. Both of these statements make no sense. If we had collected several years’ worth of data on lots of our students we could probably make a good estimate of what 7 months growth looks like, but we don’t – it is all complete and utter guesswork. Unfortunately, 50% of our evaluations depend on these measures and no one wants to appear to be “ineffective.”
The irony of the student growth business is that students will actually learn less because all we are doing is assessing, not teaching. Even our planning time is being usurped with data entry and record keeping tasks that have nothing to do with informing our instruction. I am all for a good test, but one that I create that helps me target weaknesses and strengths of my students. The endless obsession with assessing to comply with this or that edict hurts our students.
Here is the truth that I know. Our staff is fantastic. We know our kids, help them learn, and want the best for them. The problem is that we are forced to endure this test-and-punish regime because we are a public district. There are concerted efforts to make public schools like ours look like we are horrible. The truth is much different. We are creative and enthusiastic, caring, and smart. We are also easily worn down by trying to comply with mandates both from the state and from our district trying to comply with the state.
What you decide to do as individuals or teams to adjust or not adjust targets is up to you. This is new territory and it is obvious that there is no consistency between principals. To expect each child to be at “passing” on a post-test is not always realistic (especially when the 1 year mark is 7 months into your course). The state wants growth, not mastery. The state objective is “rigorous, but attainable.” Is 8% growth reasonable? Is the Austin Mystery Formula attainable? Do two standard deviations give us what we need? Apparently, it depends on who is checking. If you are tenured, consider using 110% as the target for all of your students – after all, don’t you give 110%?
In Union,
Ari Klein
CHTU President