The process of setting and evaluating student learning objectives (SLOs) has become increasingly popular as an example where classroom assessment is intended to fulfill the dual purpose use of informing instruction and holding teachers accountable. A concern is that the high-stakes purpose may lead to distortions in the inferences about students and teachers that SLOs can support. This concern is explored in the present study by contrasting student SLO scores in a large urban school district to performance on a common objective external criterion. This external criterion is used to evaluate the extent to which student growth scores appear to be inflated. Using 2 years of data, growth comparisons are also made at the teacher level for teachers who submit SLOs and have students that take the state-administered large-scale assessment. Although they do show similar relationships with demographic covariates and have the same degree of stability across years, the two different measures of growth are weakly correlated.