OK, we give a pretest in the fall and then the same test in the fall and the difference in scores shows what the student learned. We are to aim for a 30 percent increase EXCEPT that it is measured in what I consider an odd way. To my way of thinking, if Amy earned a 30 on the pretest and a 40 on the test, she has achieved a 30% growth.
If she earned a 30 on the pretest, that leaves 70 to make a 100. 30% of 70 is 21, so Amy would need to earn a 51 (30 + 21) to achieve a 30% growth.
Obviously, the higher your initial score, the less you have to make on the post test for growth, so this is scewed against the low achievers.
The state heads into its end of year testing next week.
Everything is going to be on line.
We already know it is going to have problems.
The teachers were told a while back that the scores will not be back before late summer, so they cannot count for the students. We would be living in a fool's paradise to believe the students do not already know this.
Ditto if we think they are going to give the tests their best effort.
Some will, most won't (if they know it doesn't count).
The scores will somehow be used in our evaluations - as part of the value added model.
I put a lot of effort into teaching - taking the time to verify what has to be covered, matching my instruction to the district tests (so they have seen the kinds of questions - not the exact question), creating work to be used to raise their grades if they do poorly on the tests.
As we near the end of the year the teachers are being told to come up with MORE work so the darlings WHO HAVE NOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF ANYTHING ELSE will have the opportunity to pass.
And the kids wonder (if they think at all) why the teachers know the material at so much more depth.
I did have a student yesterday (one who matches the description above) that he felt teachers should be tested every year or so to make sure they knew the material.