Please note that these ratings are based on inaccurate data. During my time at Westwood Charter Elementary, I have only taught Kindergarten (where students at that grade level do NOT take the California Standards Test). I have also never taught 3rd Grade in my teaching career. All of this information can be confirmed with my official records and the school. Please ignore these scores as this is an error. The LAUSD Data & Accountability Department has been notified and is currently in the process of updating their database and correcting this information.

http://web.me.com/alden1013/CST/Room_3_CST_Data_for_2010.html

Value Rated is flawed because you do not take into account the student's individual attendance record, as I said before to LA Times and Value Added Rating System. You tell me who should be held accountable when a student in a teacher's class repeatedly does not come to school and throughout each grade shows a documented attendance issue. A day a child is NOT in school is a day learning tested skills goes unaccomplished. Every year I have worked at LAUSD I have one or more, sometimes several, students who have poor attendance! Is that then the teacher's lack of teaching skills when the student shows poor academic progress? Where does Value Rated adjust for this particular aspect so many of LAUSD teachers face= poor student attendance? I do believe I read nothing about Value Added Ratings taking this into account. Again, flawed flawed and flawed system to Rate educators! Get Real!!!!

For the past 6 years I have worked at 107th Street Elementary School, a multi-track elementary school. I have taught on track B for all 6 years. This particular track gives my students 6 weeks off right before the CST. So every year after our 6 week break I have exactly one week to review ALL material that I have covered the entire year. I ask the LA Times to research their teacher evaluations. Find out how many teachers on this list are on the same track and how it affects their scores. Find out how many of their students who are new comers to this country are taking this test. Find out how many students on their roster have IEPs who did not qualify to take the CMA instead of the CST. There is more to evaluating a teacher's performance than just a test score.

I don't feel this ratings are accurate as they cannot possibly reflect the many circumstances that go into the assessments of students in our local schools.

For instance, at my school we divided the students into homogeneous groups according to academic achievement: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, and Far Below Basic.

Some years I taught one group, other years I taught other groups. However, this rating is based on the students that were on my roster that given year, which were not the same students I taught these subject matters.

What can I say? Last year, my rating was even lower...so I guess any progress is a good thing. I am not ashamed. I work hard with my kids and encourage them to push themselves to progress on their own terms. Most of my children come to me well below grade level, and ELD levels 1-3 (in 5th grade). I am proud of each and every one of my children. They do make progress in my class. It may not be at grade level, but I am not a miracle worker. I do, however, have complete faith in my students that they will continue to progress in future years.

I will say that it's only been the last few years where these tests were made into such a big deal. Before 2007, we were told these tests would not effect us in any way.

Also, for 2008, I was on maternity leave.

Note: I took on this class after leaving Project GRAD LA in the middle of March 2006. Although I am not happy with the results of the students I taught from mid- March to May when they were tested on the CST; I am not entirely responsible for the test scores given the fact that I only had them for two months prior to testing. In addition, I took this class over from a teacher who had no control of the class therefore the students were getting very little in education. You can speak with the principal about this and I hope the LA Times can do their due diligence before calculating the performance value of a teacher.

Being that the LA Times is such a well known and reputable newspaper, I would expect for you to verify all of your publishing’s for accuracy before ranking someone as a least effective teacher, or least effective anything for that matter. You have me listed as a third grade teacher for the testing year 2010, when in FACT I was an out of the classroom coordinator that year. To me this is SLANDER.

Curious about my "rating?" Come ask me about it.

Didn't a teacher commit suicide after your report last year? Listen. I teach in an area of South Los Angeles that most of your readers wouldn't want to drive through. I work at a job that most of your readers wouldn't dare undertake because I am so under paid for what I do. I work for a district that has seen it fit to lay me off the past three years, only to re-hire me at the very last second. NOBODY WHO MATTERS GIVES A HOOT ABOUT YOUR RATING. Believe me, no parent of mine questions my ability to deliver the best education to their child. I will be receiving "thank-you" notes from many of my students when they are in college or are productive adults in society. At that time, my effectiveness as a teacher can be measured. I may, at that time, find you and send you some copies of such letters. By the way? How many "thank-you" letters do you estimate you will be receiving?