Edward M. Mitchell
A 3rd grade teacher at Los Feliz Elementary in 2008
These graphs show a teacher's "value-added" rating based on his or her students' progress on the California Standards Tests in math and English. The Times’ analysis used all valid student scores available for this teacher from the 2003-04 through 2009-10 academic years. The value-added scores reflect a teacher's effectiveness at raising standardized test scores and, as such, capture only one aspect of a teacher's work.
About this rating
The red lines show The Times’ value-added estimates for this teacher. Mitchell falls within the “less effective than average” category of district teachers in math and within the “most effective” category in English. These ratings were calculated based on test scores from 109 students.
Because this is a statistical measure, each score has a degree of uncertainty. The shading represents the range of values within which Mitchell’s actual effectiveness score is most likely to fall. The score is most likely to be in the center of the shaded area, near the red line, and less likely in the lightly shaded area. Teachers with ratings based on a small number of student test scores will a have wider shaded range.
The beige area shows how the district's 11,500 elementary school teachers are distributed across the categories.
Mitchell's LAUSD teaching history
Years used for value-added rating. See FAQ for details.
Edward Mitchell's Response:
During the years in question we were mandated at our school to teach 3 hours of Language Arts and 1 hour of Math. We were held to those specific time constraints. In addition the district was constantly revising the pacing plan which they called the Math Instructional Guide or MIG. Each year they would take the lesson that had already been organized in the Math text book and switch them around- omitting lessons that built understanding for future learning and have us try to piece together some threads of understanding. The Math instructional program was a mess but I followed it exactly as we were told to- by my administrator and Math Coach. Additionally, I have a bilingual certification, so I was always working with students who were English Language Learners. For students who did not have the language skills to access the curriculum learning English was a priority. Was that factored into this measure? Furthermore two of the years that I am being rated on for Math I actually didn't teach Math at all! We were departmentalized at my school and although students were listed on my roster, I taught students from two classes and I only taught Language Arts, Social Studies, Art and Technology. I did not teach Mat! Another teacher was responsible for Math, Science, Health and PE. And just for your information the first year I participated in the departmentalized program one third of my students moved up in Language Arts while almost all the other student maintained. The following year out of 60 students I was able to move half of the students up (30), while almost all the rest maintained. These are just a few of the factors that have influenced the scores and which demonstrate the lack of validity in this teacher effectiveness measure. I am an award winning teacher, board certified, and have conducted numerous inservices in Language Arts, Technology, and yes, Math. I have also contributed to the learning communities I have been apart of by bringing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and donations to our schools. Parents lobby my administrators in order to have their children in my classes, and anyone who knows me knows I have the highest professional ethic. But according to your data, I just some average and seemingly deficient instructor.
The Times gave LAUSD elementary school teachers rated in this database the opportunity to preview their value-added evaluations and publicly respond. Some issues raised by teachers may be addressed in the FAQ. Teachers who have not commented may do so by contacting The Times.