The LA Times blew it open last Sunday. In the first of a series of articles pertaining to teachers and Los Angeles school performance, the Times unveiled findings of research intending to discern how teachers affect student performance. Researchers employed a “value added” analysis for over six thousand LA elementary teachers, using test score data to track whether students improve, maintain, or fall behind throughout their tenure with a given teacher.
Not surprisingly, teachers in the same school serving the same demographic had wildly different “effects.” Whether or not the increase/decrease was due to the teacher is currently being trampled in the subsequent dust-up, and it’s definitely a dust-up–not only did the Times print names of teachers, they are going to publish a database, open to the public, of all the teachers and their “value added” results!
It is all quite juicy.
Whether or not this is the best way to evaluate teachers is sure to be debated more heatedly than ever, and much thanks is due to the LA Times. This question was not being openly discussed in California before now, and now it’s blowing up nationwide.
I can’t say I’m surprised that A.J. Duffy, head of the LA teachers’ union, called for a boycottof the LA Times shortly after the article was published. Once again, minimal if any interest in learning from the data. No love to the teachers who might actually learn a thing or two from the results (the teachers with poor value-added scores in the article indicated that the score information would be useful for their instructional practice). Just shut the Times up. Classic.
Thankfully, he seems to have backpedaled a bit, thanks to some reasoned response from the head of the national American Federation of Teachers. And bonus props to one of the candidates to replace Duffy at the end of his term, who said he was disgusted by Duffy’s call to boycott the Times.
I don’t know if evaluating teachers based on “value added” is the answer, but I definitely see it as a useful component in the evaluation process. Ironically, much of the credit for this report is due to folks like Duffy and like-minded union leaders who disseminate inaccurate information regarding how test scores might be used in evaluation, and resist any objective measures that might contribute to judging teacher effectiveness. I have had multiple conversations with teachers who tell me, “Oh no, we can never have merit pay. They will base all of our pay and evaluation based on how the kids do on the state tests.” When straw-man sloganeering substitutes for informed debate, you’re bound to get served a big fat helping by the Los Angeles Times.
Humble hat tip to the LA Times, for unearthing information that will be valuable for parents, administrators, and ESPECIALLY for teachers (absolute shame on Duffy for trying to suppress the Times on this one).
I can’t wait to read the rest of the series.
