Hamilton County staff: letter grades can mask school progress; board urged to weigh growth and proficiency together

Shannon Moody, Hamilton County Schools’ accountability lead, told the Board at a policy work session that state letter grades and the underlying TCAP test measure two distinct things — achievement (how many students meet a proficiency “finish line”) and growth (how much students advance from their starting points).

Moody used a running-track metaphor to explain the difference: “Achievement is how many kids cross the finish line. Growth is essentially erasing the finish line and say, did every student, regardless of where they started, make a whole loop around the track,” she said. She showed district data that, in some cases, proficiency rose slightly while measured growth declined.

Nut graf: The distinction matters because Tennessee’s newly implemented A–F methodology reduces some measures used previously (targets and subgroup measures) and weights absolute achievement more heavily, making high-poverty schools appear lower on letter-grade charts even when they show strong year‑over‑year growth in the district’s benchmarks. Hamilton County staff urged the board to continue using multiple measures from Opportunity 2030 and local targets to evaluate schools.

Moody told the board that TCAP remains the primary statewide test feeding the grades and growth metrics. She presented district examples: math proficiency in the district rose from 35.8% to 36.6% year over year while math growth averaged at a level 1, meaning many students did not reach the district’s growth benchmark. She also highlighted a pair of local elementary examples: one high‑poverty school rose from 11% to 23% proficiency in one year and produced level‑5 growth for its bottom 25% of students but still received a B under the state grade because absolute proficiency remained 23%; another lower‑poverty school moved from roughly 63% to 64.8% proficiency but did not meet its internal target and recorded level‑2 growth measures.

Moody and board members noted long‑standing national and state patterns: achievement correlates to school poverty rates while growth does not necessarily correlate with poverty. Moody showed scatter plots comparing schools’ poverty levels to achievement and growth and cited historical charts (going back to 2008) that show the same pattern over time.

Board members pressed for specifics about what data the district uses and whether higher‑performing students are tracked. Moody confirmed TCAP is the source for the statewide measures and described additional local metrics the district uses: K–2 early literacy measures (because TCAP starts in grade 3), benchmark measures by standard and cohort, and a self‑efficacy metric. She said the district also uses individual student predictions (benchmarks that look back to earlier scores) so teachers and principals can identify whether a student is meeting their projection and act earlier.

Several board members argued the state’s change to a simpler grading formula — which removes AMOs (annual measurable objectives) and reduces subgroup reporting in the state grade — risks mischaracterizing schools for the public. Moody said Hamilton County will continue disaggregating and reporting subgroup and target progress locally under Opportunity 2030 even if the state’s published grade omits those pieces.

Ending: District staff framed the letter‑grade change as a reason for the board to emphasize growth and local targets in communications with the public. Moody offered to provide more detailed school‑level slides and to pull additional views (for example, tracking top performers) for board members who requested them.