Even before I knew my personal ranking I felt this was a flawed and unfair study. I did not like the idea that the study singled out only 3rd-5th grade teachers and that the Times would actually publish names of all these teachers.

Stronger test results were from 2005-2007 class. Medical conditions resulted in low test scores for the years 2007-2009 which affected overall performance. Looking forward to 2009-2010 results!

I am pleased to see that my students have done so well. I know that both my students and myself work very hard during each school year to develop excellent habits for lifelong learning as well as master the standards, learn critical thinking processes, and computation facts. Thank you for this feedback.

I am also a very strict teacher with high expectations for my students...and for myself as a teacher.

I am disappointed to see this. This doesn't show my student's previous scores in 3rd grade. Many of my students were far below basic or below basic. Most of my students were in English Language Development classes and are grouped by levels 1-4. I referred 7 students to student success team, and because there are many avenues to go through not all of them were eligible for resource even though they have been referred almost every year. Every child brings in their own special talents and abilities. I try my hardest to make them succeed. Maybe that means they may not meet advanced or proficient by year's end, but it might mean they improved. Isn't improvement a measure of success? Every class is different, my test scores for 2008-2009 were quite different. I don't think this is a measure of my ability as a teacher. There are many factors. It takes a village to raise a child, isn't there any truth in that?

I had always been a very effective teacher through my 34 years of teaching. Going to Open Court Reading stymied so many good, proven teaching strategies. A shame! One size never fits all.

I quote the Times article: "Value-added ratings reflect a teacher's effectiveness at raising standardized test scores. As such, they capture ONLY ONE ASPECT of a teacher's work ..."
One multiple choice test on a few days in May does not even come close to assessing what my students may or may not know in any given subject, nor does it adequately judge my overall effectiveness as a teacher.
I think it is a useful bit of data to help teachers and administrators improve the quality of their teaching, but I urge us all to be careful that we don't let the outcome of one test be the basis for a teacher's effectiveness.

I'm listed as a 4th grade teacher but 5 out of the last 6 years I have taught 5th grade.

I would love to know my exact percentile rank instead of just the diamond.

My students scored mostly in the 70's, 80's and 90's in Math. Those are effective scores in any school district. My students are largely English Language Learners and English reading is harder for them. You do not have my permission to print my name and work location in your paper or website. And you know nothing about what goes on in LAUSD schools and are in no position to evaluate my performance. My employer has the legal right to evaluate me, you don't. Jason Song and Jason Felch know as much about public education in Los Angeles as I know about brain surgery. If your newspaper published the names and work locations of employees in any company they would sued to high heaven. Your above disclaimer states that the Times' standards do not allow personal attacks. Your reporters are presently attacking 6000 hard working teachers.

Your results generally reflect my own opinions about my teaching and in general I agree that this is a much better process than "dog and pony show" we have now. However, I do have some concerns. During the period in which I was evaluated, I thaught three grade levels with students of widely differing entry levels. I taught a 4/5 split made primarily of students with IEP's, and two seperate classes made up of grade level or higher students. The combination class had much greater room for improvement and generally did so. The higher achieving classes did well, but had much less room for improvement. How does your formula account for the fact that a high achieving student, or class of studnets, may have little or no room for growth?

If you are a highly effective teacher, and you are to be evaluated under this system, would it not be better to have a class of lower level students whose scores can rise more significantly under your instruction? Or to game the system by selecting a class of student whose previous teacher is ineffective? The student's scores would not be a true reflection of their abilities and would provide an effective teacher an opportunity to add a few percentile points on top of their own added-value.