Nicholas Andrew Glover
A 4th grade teacher at Carpenter Community Charter in 2006
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 2002-03 through 2008-09 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.
Compared with other Los Angeles Unified teachers on the value-added measure of test score improvement, Glover ranked:
- More effective than average overall.
- Most effective in math. Students of teachers in this category, on average, gained about 11 percentile points on the California Standards Test compared with other students at their grade level.
- More effective than average in English. Students of teachers in this category, on average, gained about 2 percentile points on the California Standards Test compared with other students at their grade level.
Glover's LAUSD teaching history
2002-03 through 2008-09 academic years
- Carpenter Community Charter, 2006 - 2005
Nicholas Glover's Response:
At the very least, this series by the Times has fast-tracked the public discussion on teacher quality in the LAUSD. That is, I'm afraid, about the only good it has served. This allotted space is not nearly enough to address the many troubling issues with the publishing of these findings, so I will address a few. In your Teacher FAQ, the Times states "Another frequent criticism is that the complexity of the underlying statistical models make the approach difficult to explain to a lay audience, a fact than [sic] engenders some suspicion." Some suspicion is a gross understatement. In essence, the reader must blindly accept the ranking of their child's teacher and surrender hope of comprehension. This excuse is beyond weak, insults the public's intelligence, and why can't the company that created the program hire some technical writers to make the material comprehensible? It's what teachers must do everyday! The "lay person" will look at these results and deduce that one teacher is better than another. Can you imagine the maelstrom at the beginning of every school year when a parent receives their child's class assignment, checks the teacher's name on the database, and goes running to the front office demanding a change? This can not be the only measure of a teacher's worth, but that is what it will become. Another quote from the Teacher FAQ claims "Until now, parents have had no objective information about the effectiveness of their child’s teacher." This is what parent-teacher conferences are for. Talking to their child's teacher, face-to-face, should give a parent a very good indication of their professionalism. Checking their child's work and looking at the quality of their child's work over the course of a semester should tell them plenty about the effectiveness of the teacher. Parents have to be held accountable as much as teachers, administrators, District personnel, and the Superintendent. Finally, I am offended with the complete disregard regarding personal privacy. The data should be used at the school site as a jumping off point for the Principal to evaluate a teacher. Some very good teachers are going to be wrongly categorized due to the publishing of this data. If it was such a comprehensive model, States that have incorporated it would use it for more than the typical 10-30% of a teacher's evaluation. Are we going to apply the same statistical model to doctors, judges, attorneys, and every other 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.
Permalink | Delicious | Digg |