Kathryn Ann Argo

Kathryn Argo's Response:

I have always felt that "value added" was one way of looking at data that we failed to do. Generally, in professional development meetings we would compare cadre of students to cadre of students. I would be interested to see my scores for each individual year. During my 6 years at Dorris Place, I taught 4 different grades (5, K, 4, 4, 4, 3) respectively. I welcome the opportunity to learn and grow from these results, and to have discussions about what impact different factors have on scores. For example, how many years have those teachers in the top half of the effectiveness category been teaching that grade level? Are they "forced" to teach Open Court exclusively? What level of proficiency (Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced) are the "effective" teachers' students moving from? Is it easier to move students from one category or the other?

As for my scores, when I taught 5th grade, it was my first year in elementary school. It was a class of thirty, with more than three challenging students. My first year in 4th grade, I had 21/28 ELD students, most being level 1 or 2. There was growth that year. Second year of 4th grade I had 11/28 RSP students. My third year was probably the most successful. In general, 4th grade is difficult for student and teacher as class size goes up from 20 to 30. My 1 year in 3rd grade I taught gifted students. Yes, their scores did go down. For example, several students who earned perfect scores in the 2nd grade (where both sections of the CST are READ to students) missed 1, 2, or 3 questions. By the way, 3rd grade is the first year students read the test on their own.

Given my "defense" above, should I be fired? Or should we as a district look at those who are successful and see what they are doing that works. The scores only indicate that something is going on. What that is requires more than a number and a written explanation for the newspaper.