SLO's or Value Added? Take your pick?

The district I will be teaching in next year, Dover City Schools, has been conducting meetings for Student Growth Measures and Student Learning Objectives. I attended one recently and had a few thoughts. First of all, I wondered why would I need to learn about this? I am a Value-Added teacher so I don't need to learn about the SGM's. Maybe this is just something that all first year teachers have to go through. I had been operating under the assumption that I didn't need to write SLO's because the value-added data would make up the SGM portion for OTES. As it turns out, we may have the opportunity to include a percentage of SLO data into our SGM even if we are value-added. Also, we may not have to write them now, but give the legislators a few more years and we'll see what happens.

But seriously, I actually liked a few aspects of the SLO process. A FEW not all. Here are a few of my random thoughts:

I was surprised at how east the SLO's seem to be to write. The template seems pretty straight forward. 

I am not thrilled about spending time to write these rather than spending time on curriculum.

Easy is not a word I would use to describe the Tiered Growth Target portion.

I like that I would be reading and interpreting the data rather than another agency (ODE, Batelle).

I like that I would have control over the growth targets.

All of this leads me to a question for those of you reading this. Would you rather take the gamble on OAA's and OGT's, or go throught all the work to write your own growth targets? Would you rather be a teacher that is all value-added, or a teacher that has to write SLO's? I find this interesting. Please let me know your thoughts on this one.