I've got an idea . . . let's base a reporter's effectiveness and pay on the newspaper's circulation rate ?

Teaching bright students who are eager to learn is every teacher's dream, but it was more than a dream to me. Every year I taught at Carpenter Elementary School, each class was an exciting challenge to meet. There were gifted 3rd and 4th grade students who were ready to learn Algebra and to read high school level books, while others were ready and willing to move ahead--and did. I passionately believe that our kids are ready to learn much more than they're given, and we should be encouraging acceleration whenever it's appropriate for the student. I'm a great champion of technology, but I think providing more mentors and tutors would be a far greater valuable educational investment than the purchase of any computer. Although I retired from LAUSD last June, a teacher who delights in teaching never truly retires, and we never, ever forget the kids we reached, nor the ones we didn't. I believe that standardized tests reflect neither the whole of a child's learning, nor the scope of his/her teacher's instruction. How can any written test discern that a student has acquired metacognition, where he has learned to analyse his own learning? On the other hand, tests can and do provide certain concrete comparisons. I welcome both the LA Times' "Value Added" scores and the scores of the annual standardized tests. They're useful tools, but they should not be treated merely as black and white teacher report cards since both the kids and the teachers are so much more.

There is so much more that goes into test scores than shows here. It is all about WHERE the students are when you receive them as students. If they are already at the top there is no room for improvement. If they are LOW (as my students generally were) then it is easier for dedicated educators to bring up their test scores. It is a shame that the "be all and end all" has to be test scores. What about reasoning, problem solving and critical thinking skills? All the emphasis on testing is, I am afraid, going to result in a group of test takers who don't know how to solve problems. I wish the so-called "experts" would spend one day - or at least one week - in the classroom and they would better understand the issues education is REALLY facing.

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.

I scored higher in math effectiveness eight months ago. I'm now working harder and more efficiently than ever! Why such a dismal change in my rating? There are far too many variables not being considered. Your model continues to be flawed and trigger-happy.

In August I wrote:
"I taught in a school, in a system, where social promotion almost always supersedes standards-based promotion. Consequently, every year my class was composed of students with an overwhelmingly wide range of abilities. Even though I was assigned one grade level, I felt obligated to cover previous grade-level standards, while introducing new grade-level content and skills, modifying for those behind, and adding complexity for those few advanced.
I can accept that I may not have been as effective as other LAUSD teachers, whose class compositions may or may not have been similar to mine, in preparing my students for the 5th grade state tests. However, I DO NOT appreciate the LA Times implying, with their “less effective” ranking, that I was in negligent in tending to my students’ education. While essentially teaching a multi-grade-level class, I worked hard and long hours (much longer than my contracted time) to meet my students’ learning needs. The standardized test scores, on which my label is based, represent one snapshot of a narrow set of standards covered in my classroom."

I still feel my LAT ratings do not reflect how tirelessly I worked to help my students become articulate and self-motivated learners with strong foundations. However, I am glad to see that the Times does qualify, "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. " Raising standardized test scores does not always equal educating.

I find it rather interesting that my ratings went down, however, i am not surprised. We have a larger student per teacher ratio, more special education student inclusion, more requirements, less support, less pay, less time due to furloughs, more students currently needing medication(and at times coming to school without it) to control ADD and ADHD, more parents who lack the basic educational skills to assist their child should they fall behind in ANY subject, did I say less support? And let's not forget the child who bubbles in anything because they are too disinterested to take their time and actually read the material. Am I upset, sure, because i work very hard, but i am not surprised. I have 4 children of my own, (2 out of college and 2 graduating next Spring)so i know what is required of a parent with school age children. Here are some pointers if you want to support your child and their teacher. Check your child's backpack(finding molding fruit from weeks past is not a good thing) at least once a week...stay informed. Check their homework for completion and correctness...is you are unfamilair with the subject, find someone to help them who is. Be prepared, have supplies on hand and send them to bed early so they can wake up ready to learn. And above all, teach them manners and self control so i don't have to correct them all day long. I need that time to TEACH!

Your data does not reflect who or what I teach. Many teachers in LAUSD partner teach with others and this data misrepresents them. I've analyzed my data for the students and the subjects I teach and the data diverges tremendously by class. Same teacher...same kinds of students demographically... different results....umm... wonder why? Maybe because this snap shot is just that: a snap shot. One picture could be more accurate than the other. OR maybe both are inaccurate. Do two days of testing reflect a child's learning over a whole year? It might measure their development at this point in their school career that has been built by multiple teachers over the years. Thoughtful people won't judge a student or a teacher on just this one picture. The data is valuable from an instructional stand point, as are all assessments. But certainly not for making wholesale judgments as to a teacher's value or the "value" that has been "added" to the child.

What a difference a year makes! Last time I was most effective. Gee, I must have lost my skills . How many more teachers will you drive away from the profession or just drive to their end? This is utterly and completely invalid. How many parents have you interviewed or assessed for their work the other 18 hours in a day? How many children have you spoken to about how they feel about school? Do you blame the doctor if his patient refuses to follow medical directives? I'll bet you'll find a way to blame the police for felons. This is the kind of thing that makes me consider retiring.

I noticed that my ratings for both subjects changed. I did read the side panel regarding ratings changes and realize that it may just be due to the addition of 5,000 more teachers to the data pool. I'm pretty sure the first possible cause listed (dropping scores from 2002-2003) would not affect me since I began teaching in LA Unified in 2005-2006. It seems that the second possible cause (adding scores from 2009-2010) would likely not affect me either since in 2009-2010, I was teaching 2nd grade, and not in 3rd through 5th grade, from where student data is being pulled. I just wanted to be sure that there was no error in my rating calculation because of a grade level change for the 2009-2010 school year.