Part 2 BOE Election Primer: Growth vs Achievement?

While I am no fan of the data driven model, if we are forced to use data as the main indicator of school success, then what data metrics should we use? Do BOE candidates prefer growth or achievement(proficiency) metrics to measure school success? The answer to those two questions is important. And for sure, when we talk data…I am gonna bring receipts.

We have definitely seen Kingsport City Schools reference individual school growth quite a bit during this current school year as its primary metric as evidenced by their social media feeds. But is student growth on the TCAP assessment actually the metric which should be guiding our decision making?

Well, I think I have now asked three questions. Before moving forward and answering those questions, I would like to define both growth and achievement(proficiency) in regards to TCAP testing.

growth: Growth is student improvement from one year to the next as measured by a scale score. In Tennessee, this is measured on TCAP by the TVAAS metric.

achievement/proficiency: Simply put, did a student master the curriculum standards for their grade level? The state of Tennessee provides us with four levels of proficiency (also known as achievement). TCAP lists those achievement(proficiency) levels as below expectations, approaching expectations, meets expectations, and exceeds expectations. If a student meets or exceeds expecations on a sections(mathematics, literacy, social studies, science)…we say that student is on grade level(or above).

Would you rather have your child in a school with lots of growth or one which has a history of high achievement(proficiency)? It’s another great question. Let’s dig a little deeper.

Example 1: If a student is already achieving at exceeding expectations, growth can be difficult to manage. They are already at the ceiling of what the test can measure. For example, if a student answered 54 of 55 questions correct in Mathematics during 2025, but only 52 of 55 correct in Mathematics during 2026…that could show up as a negative growth score as their scale score trajectory would likely be negative. Yet, they would likely still be at the highest achievement level of exceeding expectations.

Example 2: If a student is achieving at a below expectations level, growth is almost assured provided good instruction (which is not interrupted by over assessment and has adequate and appropriate interventions). Let’s say on the same aforementioned Mathematics assessment, a student answers 15 out of 55 correct in 2025. Then in 2026, they get 25 out of 55 correct That 10 question improvement is likely going to net a healthy growth score. However, the student is still far below grade level.

Which student would you rather be? The student w/ the exceeding expectations level in achievement(and got 52 questions correct) but w/ a slightly negative growth score OR the student who is below grade level(and got 25 questions correct) but had excellent growth?

I think both students have some positives embedded within their scores. But certainly, you want to be the student w/ high achievement.

And certainly this post is not to meant to cast negative light on struggling learners. On the contrary, I want this post to remind readers that proficiency/achievement should be our ultimate goal for as many students as we can get to those levels. However, for students struggling to reach grade level, we can still look at growth scores.

That applies to the macro level as well. We want our schools to be high achieving. Growth is more important in our schools w/ at-risk students, BUT we must have the expectation that at-risk students can achieve on equal levels to students who are not.

When prospective home buyers look at new houses, I can just about assure you that they are going to look at things like proficiency/achievement for a system and school, parent reviews of each school on a site like Niche or US News and World Report rankings, offerings of AP classes along w/ pass rates(KCS has outstanding offerings there), extra curricular opportunities, and options for advanced classes. I am not sure TVAAS growth even enters the equation when searching for great school districts.

Last question. Is KCS recognizing schools with high achievement(proficiency) and is KCS offering strong intervention for schools w/ low achievement? We have one school where nearly 70% of its students are below grade level(below and approaching levels) in Literacy!!! We know that low achievement in Literacy correlates to higher risks of dropping out of high school, increased drug use, and even imprisonment among other things.

On a positive note…Ross N Robinson Middle School is an award winning middle school in the US News and World Report’s rankings. It ranks as one of the top middle schools in Tennessee and one of the very best in Northeast Tennessee. Have we properly recognized RNR for that ranking? I don’t know about that.

I think it is important that candidates emphasize achievement/proficiency. While growth is an important metric, ultimately our goal must seek to develop competent students w/ the vast majority having mastered the curriculum or are on track to do so. We want to cultivate and recognize learning environments which both promote high achievement and encourage students to innovate and can think for themselves.

ProTip: In my eighteen years of teaching, I have sometimes seen TVAAS growth used to cover up for achievement/proficiency shortcomings in school systems and/or schools. Really, there is no incentive for a school (w/ the combination of both good growth scores and poor achievement(proficiency)) to ever really attain high achievement(proficiency) levels if TVAAS growth is the emphasized metric. In many cases, the lower achievement(proficiency) scores, the greater opportunity for huge growth scores. When we use only TVAAS growth metrics, this also has the potential to incentivize low baseline achievement scores in some grade levels.