Karina J. Trinidad
A 3rd grade teacher at Meyler Street Elementary in 2010
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. Trinidad falls within the “least effective” category of district teachers in math and within the “least effective” category in English. These ratings were calculated based on test scores from 35 students.
Because this is a statistical measure, each score has a degree of uncertainty. The shading represents the range of values within which Trinidad’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.
Trinidad's LAUSD teaching history
Years used for value-added rating. See FAQ for details.
Karina Trinidad's Response:
Unfortunately, test scores are the only thing that the public has at hand. I personally feel that so many important factors cannot be measured by these test results. First, this "graphic" only shows two years of test results vs. my actual teaching history. It does not reflect the high rigor that is evident in my planning and delivery. Nor does it represent these students as being Dual Language students. These third grade classes both received 48% of English instruction throughout their instructional day because that is what the program entails while the majority of their instructional time is spent learning standards-based content in Spanish. By the way, 71% of these English Learners scored at either Advanced or Proficient levels in Spanish Language Arts and 75% in Math in the Standards Test in Spanish in 2009. In 2010 as well, 56% were Advanced or Proficient in Spanish Language Arts and 68% at Proficient and Advanced in Math. Both years, I have had only 4% of my students at Below Basic or Far Below Basic. So, is it my teaching or is it an unfair testing tool (in a second language) and the Language Arts Program that is LEAST EFFECTIVE??? Both years, my students did very well when the standardized test was in their native language and as experts know, it takes at least five years for a child to learn a second language at a proficient level. As Dual Language research also proves, in a few years these same students will outperform their English counterparts. Furthermore, other crucial factors like a child's home support, maturity level, their physical and emotional well-being, learning styles, and individual stories play a huge factor in their academic success. Finally, my students (and all Dual Language students districtwide)) test for three consecutive weeks. They spend one week testing in Spanish and right after that, they test for two more weeks for the CST. It is exhausting!
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.