The LA Times has once again decided to publish student test scores for a group of elementary LAUSD teachers. However, the newspaper has still not secured an evaluation of the tests themselves. With so much at stake, the paper must ensure that the results are valid evaluations of student mastery of the state standards. The Times needs to have the tests assessed by a team of independent experts. Until then, it is irresponsible to publish questionable data about the hard working teachers of our city.

What I don't understand is the rationale the Times is using to publish this information. They state,"Research has repeatedly found that teachers are the single most important school-related factor in a child's education." I'd like to read that so called research. Education is a partnership, between parents, students, teachers, administrators and the community, everyone counts in school-related factors. Schools need all stake holders involved in their students education.
I believe socio-economic status is a more likely predictor of test scores. Compare schools in economically disenfranchised communities vs schools in more affluent communities. Why not compare apples to apples; school to school in similar neighborhoods? It seems like the Times would like to actuate policy rather than uncover facts.

Before labeling a teacher effective or least effective by solely using test scores, LA Times is ineffective in fully researching a teacher. Had LA Times properly done their research on me, they would've seen that I was on back to back maternity leaves of absences during the school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. I was not even at the school site to give the students the assessments that LA Times is basing their findings of labeling a teacher effective or ineffective. During those two years I was busy trying to be an effective first time parent.

These statistics are not reliable and are by no means a true indication of teacher effectiveness. For example, I had a 3/4 split for one year. I kept my fourth graders and "farmed out" my third graders. This was the principal's decision. Students checked in with me in the morning and checked out at the end of the day. They were with the other teacher the bulk of the day. When teachers are forced to split their class student standardized test scores are a reflection of both teachers. Has this ever been taken into consideration?

Last year for language arts, my students went up an average of 33 points. Looking at scores, 21 students went up, 3 went down. Looking at bands (far below basic --> advanced) 8 went up 1 band, 6 went up 2 bands, and 2 went down 1 band.

For math, my students went up an average of 13 points. 15 students went up in scores and 6 went down. Looking at bands, 2 went down 1 band, 7 went up 1 band, 1 went up 2 bands, and 1 went up 3 bands!

While I don't have the scores handy anymore, the year before was nearly the same. This means I am "less effective?" If my scores show me as less effective, that means that most teachers did better than I did. If that were true, LAUSD would have much better scores than they do.

Don't trust this model. Don't trust LA Times for objective reporting. Look to the LA Times to support an effort to bust unions and destroy public sector jobs. Where is the LA Times evaluation of charter school teachers using this same model? Charter school evaluations where students are not so diverse and hand picked, and where students who prove difficult or failing are "counseled out" and sent to public schools.

Instead of feeling defensive about not having a high score, I feel proud of what I was able to accomplish with those two groups of students. It was my first and only time teaching 5th grade in 04 and 4th grade in 05. The first year of any grade level can be overwhelming, but I was fortunate enough to have a great group of students both years. Many of the students and I, from both those years continue to stay in touch. Some of them have really blossomed into life long learners in their own right.
Data like this is just a tool for me to reflect on my teaching, it is not a complete survey of me as teacher. It doesn't make sense for people to perceive the value added scores as anything more than one form of data.

As a team teacher, I would like to have access to the data from my other class to compare results with my homeroom, which is what I assume this data represents. Is that possible? Does this data take into account the 3 years I taught 3rd grade as well, or just the year I have taught 5th?

Being a relatively new teacher, I welcome feedback that will help me to adjust my teaching to best fit my students' needs. It is, however, only one data point. The CST seems to be designed to test stamina and question interpretation ability, rather than true reading comprehension. The 5th grade test requires students to stay focused through 7 long reading passages and questions in one testing session. If the test was truly a test of ability, it would not be this long, with questions asked in such obtuse ways. As a result, I have to devote more time than I'd like to helping students learn to decode the questions to have a fair chance against the test makers, rather than being able to focus solely on teaching reading comprehension. Being evaluated by a tool that is not truly testing students' knowledge and abilities is one of the primary frustrations teachers face today.

These value-added scores brings a sense of satisfaction that we daily work tirelessly to uplift the spirits and creactivity of our students.

This rewarding experience, I may say is equivalent to when I earned the Masters Degree in Educational Administration and concluded my advanced degree by being invited to participate in becoming the Secretary of Education for the country of Mexico.

In September/1998, I communicated with a presidential website established by the Vicente Fox.
In March/1999, President Vicente Fox, First Lady Laura Bush and Former Governor Gray Davis
were standing before me and all my teacher colleagues to congratulate us on a job well done and kudos. You may reach me at fmend1@lausd.net . Thanks

Just for the record, these ratings are not always a true measure of one teacher's individual effectiveness. Rather, they often reflect the entire school support and intervention system. Though my rating slightly "improved" in math from the previous year, I don't credit myself, as I had some students receiving extra help daily from the math coach as well as many students in after school intervention classes. Be careful when praising or demeaning teachers based on these scores alone, as they may not tell the whole story.

To all concerned:

This correspondence is in reference to some results of an 'effectiveness' outcome for teacher scores the L.A. Times intends to publish (again). I received this 'effectiveness' score Friday April 8, 2011 and I have been asked to respond voluntarily.

First of all thank you L.A. Times very much for demonstrating an ability to display raw data with its limitations. Unfortunately, this doesn’t reflect with any accuracy, the effectiveness of me or my teaching. It does show a five year period of administrative turbulence and bias at the site in question. However the scores exhibited here are dismal at best. Again they aren’t accurate. I’d also like to know if our precious tax dollars are funding this research. If so, what is the cost if for the most part the results lack some validity?

I do not intend to make excuses. This L.A. Times study and publication is showing raw data. It is what it is. What is shown is not a teacher effectiveness gauge, but a combination of mismanaged class assignments.

The nature of that dilemma is neither here nor there. The graphical representation though represents the effects of the dilemma.

Any reader must know that any student (high achiever or low achiever) can be transferred into a teacher’s class within months or weeks prior to a state exam. Does the L.A. Times’ researcher Richard Buddin consider that? Should we include students with this transience or their prior knowledge or limited to no prior knowledge?

Should we be teaching students and parents to be self sufficient and responsible for their outcomes? Should they be responsible for their scores as well? Based on these scores this L.A. Times publication exhibits, should I go to each of my past teachers and say that my experience has not led to value added outcomes for my students? Should I label them ineffective? Where does this ridiculous nature end?

If the intent of this display with my name attached is to represent truth and accuracy in teacher effectiveness, I think the prudent thing to do would be to include the LAUSD OCR (Language Arts) Data and Math scores for the past 3 years. In addition, parent surveys may need to be included in this mix as well. If those are included, the graph would be at ‘most effective’ because there is for the most part, an increase in student scores from student entry into my class to student exit. Parent satisfaction would also be a factor for rating effectiveness. Therefore it would show effectiveness and bring the scores up.

The state tests do not incorporate the strategies teachers, like myself, must use. We use learning maps and visual representations, group discussions, etc. to help with comprehension that may not be so available when the tests are given. Math is done with manipulatives but the state test allows sharpened pencils and rulers. This is a rough outline but the point is some items just don’t align with the state test format. Each school may be different but we’re expected not to teach to the test.

We have also used strategies to pinpoint and isolate areas to raise scores by a few points in one area or another. It is a great strategy and could show an increase in a component here or there and perhaps even manipulate data. Is this a value added method? Are we to teach to the test?

Does that really show teacher effectiveness?

Now my question is whether this publication (LATimes and the Richard Buddin findings) has intentions of publishing LAUSD OCR (Language Arts) Data and Math scores for the past 3 years on my behalf (or any teacher who may have switched grades)? If this publication wants to display my name to the public, it should have the decency to be accurate with all assessments that are used. If the focus is simply the state tests, then when this publication publishes its results (as was done last year) it represents inaccuracy and it is misleading. The results are just perpetually the same since I’ve taught a different grade for three years thereafter. There is nothing cumulative about it. It shows a period frozen in time that happened to be a turbulent time at that. Now year after year the same results are shown to the public.

It can work both ways. Think of a teacher who just taught one year of 5th grade with solid outcomes. After that taught elsewhere 'ineffectively' but perpetually looks strong with this type of publication.

Am I to be inaccurately defined by this data indefinitely or perpetually for having to be subjected to a biased administration for the results generated? I hope the parents, friends, students, colleagues, peers, administrators, or anyone with a general interest just understands what the numbers mean. I doubt anyone would consider these numbers to define my effectiveness.

Please keep in mind that teachers aren’t measured effective unless they are teaching grades 3 or 5 in this L.A. Times publication (to the best of my knowledge based on what was presented to me in the email hyperlink I was led to prior to publication). State tests are key in this publication. Why not show every teacher in the district or the state?

Should this publication marginalize my good name (or any teacher for that matter) because I (or any teacher for that matter) was given some questionable students during this timeframe? Can you prove in that timeframe under the same circumstances someone would have been more effective? If so, what are these factors? I’d also love to see the time machine.

Do you or your research team intend to publish effective and ineffective parents? Do you or your research team intend to publish effective and ineffective UTLA representatives? Do you or your research team intend to publish effective and ineffective LAUSD administrators? Is this just finger pointing?

I am all for merit pay but make everyone in the child’s life accountable. Label everyone effective or ineffective or value added or subtracted. Not all teachers get the high achievers. Not all classes will have the same outcomes. Should we go merit pay and attach the pay to the score, I will take the high achievers and the gifted. Who wouldn’t?

I know I am effective and so does the community I represent and serve.

Thank you to any reader for reading this response.

Thank you LA Times for publishing these numbers.

For further reading, consider, ‘Research Study Shows L. A. Times Teacher Ratings Are Neither Reliable Nor Valid’ which shows the simplicity of value added concepts of these attempts from Richard Buddin’s findings (Briggs, 2011). It lacks too many factors.

That may show some balance to this continuous saga.

Sincerely,

Brian Keith Little

References:

Briggs, D., Mathis, W. (2011). Research study shows la times teacher ratings are neither reliable nor valid. Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2011/02/research-study-shows-l-times-teacher-ratings-are-neither-reliable-nor-valid

If possible, I may add more prior to publication as time permits.