Comments on: L.A. Times ranks teachers based on student scores

By: A teacher with GREAT scores

A teacher with GREAT scores — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:43:18 +0000

Unfortunately, the people running these articles have no idea what they are talking about. They are using one set of criteria to determine how good a teacher is. I am not saying that every teacher is good at what they do, but to place all of the blame on a classroom teacher is ridiculous. The students and THEIR parents play a BIG part in this puzzle. I am a teacher, a very good one at that. My scores are far above the state average, but I know other great teachers who work just as hard and may not do as well. The reason, they teach students who have struggled for years. One main problem, the kids and parents must do their part also. The blame for poor test scores cannot fall completely on the shoulders of the teachers; many more are to blame.

By: Gordon Danning

Gordon Danning — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:58:49 +0000

I note that in the LA Times article, the responses of the teachers identified as having poor results are a long the lines of, “Really? I’m surprised. I should try to do something different.”

If most teachers respond that way, then the release of the data will turn out to be a good thing, will it not?

By: TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:00:01 +0000

JR. Your post at 36 makes perfect sense which is why it will be attacked. The response to boycott the paper (which I’m sure is printed with union labor) is an example of the unwillingness to accept any redeeming value of the actual information. LA isn’t using the information for evaluation. It’s the newspaper providing parents and any interested party ONE piece of information regarding the effectiveness of teachers. In it’s proper context, this shouldn’t be controversial at all. It might be uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t be controversial.

I’m not with Nextset yet, but we are entering a world where progress is measured, where hiding behind a closed door is no longer viable, where transparency is expected and not despised. Those not ready for that world (in education and everywhere else) need to get ready.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:30:47 +0000

David,
The education system is broken, and has been for a long time, and we need to find a way to test which parts are broken so it can be fixed, the API score is used by parents as an indicator of how schools are doing academically(yet no one throws a hissy fit). SAT’s are used to gauge students abilities entering college(and yet no one is up in arms). The value added method has validity because it basically test a student against him or herself in previous years. In effect there are 30+ data points in each class(if most or all of the kids are losing ground what other conclusion can you draw)? This doesn’t tell the whole story, but it is a good start in conjunction with observations of the teachers and possibly reviewing lesson plan books(which should be mandatory). We the taxpayers can no longer just hand over the money and take what we get, we demand results.

By: David Laub

David Laub — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:26:52 +0000

Ms. Murphy-

Given that the “Value Added” method is so controversial regarding its’ application as a sound statistical indicator; and given that the LA Times has chosen to use a study that has been seriously challenged by educators and statisticians-including the U.S. Department of Education; and further given that this “method” is being erroneously heralded as “unbiased”-

It would be a true service to readers to have an article completely devoted to evaluating the arguments pro and con regarding the purpose and appropriate use of this “value added” method. This article could explore the motivations of the LA Times and the authors of the “study”, in using a “method” that is so apparently questionable.

By: aly

aly — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:36:03 +0000

the argument about “these” kids versus the kids of piedmont or white-populated school vs. minority-populated schools become irrelevant when considering that the scores were analyzed for students’ annual progression. this is my preferred way to study my own test scores because what i want to know is if i moved my students forward in their time with me. when you look at test scores in this light, it doesn’t hurt a teacher that johnny enters a classroom 3 years behind grade level, and therefore will likely not score on grade level, because what you’re studying is did that gap close at all during the year he was in the class. as we focus on studying how to close the achievement gap and what makes good teachers, you have to look at two sets of data: what progress students are making in a school year AND how minority students are scoring relative to their white peers.

if we talk about ranking teachers or evaluating teachers based on test scores, it seems important in areas where there is more poverty, less community support/involvement and less access to focus on which teachers can effectively “grow” their students. if we in turn build an army of teachers who are proving consistent growth, then the gap can be closed and the other set of data- how minority students stack up against white peers- should start to improve, as well. that is, if a student is 5 years behind when they start 9th grade but that teacher can raise their skills 2 grade levels (which is doable), then the 10th and 11th grade teachers do the same thing, by the time the student is a senior they are “caught up” and the gap (for them) is greatly diminished if not closed. of course, there is not a CST for seniors so attaining that data is tricky and relies on other sources like benchmark tests or perhaps even college entrance exams to see overall skill level/comparative scores for black, brown and white students.

as far as the use of these scores to determine teacher quality and create transparency, my discomfort with this lies in the fact that, as stated many times over, there is not a perfect system of data analysis, yet. if you’re going to label teachers good OR bad, we need more than an imperfect system. it’s not fair to students and their families or teachers to publish rankings that have a +/- of 10%. what makes me happy about this is that groups are pushing the research forward to FIND the system that will allow us to use test data in a useful way to quantify teacher quality. and, while school districts COULD do it, i’m glad they’re not. i’d rather have an outside organization with nothing to hide doing the work. sorry for the skepticism.

By: LeeB

LeeB — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:38:59 +0000

As some of the earlier comments suggest, I don’t think we have enough information about the methodology used by the Times to evaluate the results, and clearly the effective impact of the study is greater than its value. While I think “value-added” evaluations might be useful in part to evaluate teachers, I wonder about the following: 1) apparently the Times got student data without individual student identity, since the district may not legally release identifiable information. That, at least, is a useful step. 2) Did the data include attendance and transfer information, as questioned by an earlier commentor, such as did it only include students who were in the teacher’s class for at least 7 or 8 months of the school year, with no more than a certain number of absences? 3) How did the study treat ESL and bilingual classes, which are numerous in LAUSD, although the tests used to evaluate the teachers are only in English? Did this approach vary with the grade level of the students? 4) Did the study distinguish between teachers with the same assignment over the 3 years and teachers whose assignment, either in the classroom or the school, varied? If so, did this seem to be a relevant factor for further, more detailed, study? 5) Do the results distinguish between teachers whose “ratings” are consistent over the 3 years and those whose “ratings” vary widely, a legitimate problem with studies which only cover 3 years. 6) To what extent is any of this information, if done properly, relevant to the evaluation of a principal? 7) Does the district itself start with individual student data before it is aggregated for evaluatory purposes? The state only releases data based on the performance of groups of students wherever they happened to be at the time of the test, which does not account for where the individual students started, academically and physically, at the start of the school year, Clearly using group data on a specific date is both unfair to teachers and less than useful for parents.

By: CarolineSF

CarolineSF — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:54:24 +0000

Sorry about the extraneous line in that post.

By: CarolineSF

CarolineSF — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:53:41 +0000

Actually not, Anonymous. It’s very difficult for the reader to spot bad reporting, since the average reader Regarding the L.A. Times firing squad, the “new media” project California Watch has posted a thoughtful response (by its education editor Louis Freedberg, a veteran journalist and former San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer). The Times is firing back at Freedberg in the comments section. It’s war! Well, first it was war on teachers — now on press critics too.

http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/test-scores-and-ethics-outing-teachers-1097

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:19:03 +0000

The L.A. Times reporters who wrote the piece about effective teachers are holding a live Web chat at 11 a.m. today. Should be interesting. I wonder if the teachers’ boycott of the Times extends to its online presence. We’ll see.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2010/08/chat-about-grading-the-teachers-lausd.html