Marian D. Shellenberg
A 5th grade teacher at Mayall 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. Shellenberg falls within the “less effective than average” category of district teachers in math and within the “less effective than average” category in English. These ratings were calculated based on test scores from 177 students.
Because this is a statistical measure, each score has a degree of uncertainty. The shading represents the range of values within which Shellenberg’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.
Shellenberg's LAUSD teaching history
Years used for value-added rating. See FAQ for details.
Marian Shellenberg's Response:
Since I began teaching in 1967, I have had immediate positive feedback from students and their families and I have had long-term feedback from students and their families. (In fact, after the first "slander" the LA Times printed about me, I have had many former students contact me in outrage at the injustice!! And, fortunately, the families at my school were not fooled by this and still were supportive and happy to have their children in my class!) I teach the curriculum and provide a rich, well-rounded program to my students. I am always very responsive to students and their parents. My colleagues and administrators have always observed that I am an excellent teacher...and I am!! Your evaluation in the "least effective" type of evaluation I have ever seen. Do you realize that this makes good, hard-working, dedicated teachers like me feel helpless? Do you realize that this drains our enthusiasm for teaching? Fortunately, our real bosses (the parents) do really know what we are doing for their children and show their appreciation and support! This undue emphasis on standardized testing is part of a whole political "game" that, if continued, may doom public education. Why would young people want to put in the effort to obtain this job to earn pay that is not commensurate with their level of education and to receive unfair criticism in a public forum? In fact, recent surveys show that less and less people are going into education. I don't blame them. The joy of emparting education does not outweigh the mud that is being slung on educators! Also: Value-Added Models exacerbate the overreliance on standardized test scores. We are heading down a road of no return that will lead to the further narrowing of the curriculum, teaching to the test, and the exclusion of critical thinking skills, the arts, and any other area that is not measured by the standardized tests.
- Value-Added Models rest on a faulty premise—that high-stakes standardized student test scores can measure a teacher’s effectiveness. Standardized tests are imperfect measures already. They often do not test what students really know and, worse, they often test low-level skills.
- As stated in a July 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Education, more than 90 percent of the variation in student test scores is due to student-level factors that are not under the control of the teacher.
- Standardized test scores do not come close to measuring everything that teachers do. They are just a snapshot of a single point in time and should not be substituted for evaluating all the work the teacher has done the other 170-plus days of school.
- My fellow teachers and I do not support keeping a teacher in the classroom who clearly isn’t making the grade, but standardized test scores should never be the basis for determining that.
- VAM is another example of a “quick fix” that some policymakers embrace instead of doing the harder work of pursuing long-term solutions for public education. We already know what works to improve student learning: smaller classes, more resources for schools, relevant professional development for teachers, and time for teachers to work collaboratively on lesson plans and curriculum.
- The research base on VAMs is currently insufficient to support the use of VAM for high-stakes decisions about individual teachers or schools. Even supporters of VAM admit that it is a flawed, inconsistent system.
- Standardized tests were not designed to evaluate teachers and they are not valid instruments for doing so. Using standardized test scores to evaluate teachers will do nothing to tell teachers how to improve their practice.
- My colleagues and I agree that the evaluation system for both teachers and administrators needs to be overhauled, but using standardized test scores isn’t the way. The evaluation system should be designed to support teachers and help them grow in their profession.
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.