The Additional 14%

I was going through old emails recently and came across this gem of an email.  There had been discussion about our science district assessment and goals set by the district for improvement. Granted, it is from 2016, but this kind of thing is still going on.  The email says:

Hello, all!

I was able to talk quickly with (Bigshot Person) this afternoon.  The additional 14% is applied to the number of proficient and advanced students.  That means that, by the 3rd District Assessment, you will be shooting for 78% of your students (up from 64%) to be proficient or advanced.

Hope this helps (and adds a sigh of relief.)

Let me throw out some questions to you (like they always want us to do to our students...not that that is a bad thing.)  

What to you notice?  What stands out?

Oh, so many things I barely know where to start. 

1) The Bigshot Person wants my number of proficient and advanced scores to increase by 14%.  

2)  Bigshot person acts like it is no big deal.    Sigh of relief?  I only have to get 14% of the basic/below-basic students up to proficient or advanced.  That's a huge jump.

3) Bigshot person, not the teachers, is setting the goal.

4) Not evident in the email, but Bigshot Person never taught science and hasn't been in the classroom for over a decade.

Do you think this is reasonable?

Short answer: no.  

Why?

• I have 100% new, different students each school year in my science class.  The Bigshot is asking for this new class of kids to improve on the old class of kids' scores.  That doesn't make sense.
• The content is often brand new, not something that is being spiraled.  Scores are going to be lower for new content.
• The percent only changes if a basic or below basic student moves up to proficient or advanced.  There is no recognition for below basic to basic or proficient to advanced.  
• Everybody, absolutely every student, is tested with the same benchmark.  SPED, ELL, transfer students.  At my school, there are higher numbers of students with special needs, ELL requirements, transient students, free and reduced lunch.  The schools in my district on "the other side of the tracks" start out much closer to this goal than we do.  

Are the higher ups out of touch?

Yes, undoubtedly.

Here's where the rub comes in.  The science teachers at my school were working their tails off.  We were very intentional in our teaching, using tried and true AVID strategies, re-grouping, on-line and hands-on simulations, tracking data, everything you were supposed to do.  But our students didn't come to us with the background knowledge and skills that many students from "the other side of the tracks" had to begin with.  We were doing a lot of catch-up work.  Our students could absolutely learn, and reach proficiency, but so much learning isn't captured in a benchmark or any test.  I hated that our "success" in teaching would be determined by a random percent decided upon by a Bigshot.  

I don't have a take-away for this scenario.  My point, I guess, is that Bigshots using random numbers to set goals is frustrating, undermines the hard work teachers have to do, shows a lack of respect for our professional judgment, and misses out on the hidden curriculum that is at the heart of all learning.  It's driving me and many others away from our love of teaching.

Please, just trust me and my 20+ years of teaching experience.  Value my opinion and professional expertise.  Let me do my job.