While I will not argue the validity of these scores, based upon the years listed, they are unfortunately representative of my early teaching career and are not representative of my recent effectiveness in raising test scores.

EECI - The "secret" to effective teaching. Expectations -the teacher who felt her students could not create a sentence because it "was too difficult" does not have high expectations and it is no surprise her scores are low. Engagement - students who are involved in solving problems, doing research on topics they are interested in will not be discipline problems and will actually learn. Critical Investigation/Thinking. Always ask "why" questions or "how do you know that?" or "how can you prove/justify that answer? Students are then re-engaged and if the teacher respects the student (big "if") discussions can be enlightening, clarifying and even fun for both students and teacher. Teachers have to trust themselves and their knowledge; and they have to trust the students, most of whom do want to learn. I am a National Board Certified teacher (retired) and was LA County/LAUSD Teacher of the Year, so fortunately, I was recognized by my peers.

Interesting results but only based on one snapshot of learning--the CST standardized test given in May of each year. When I look at my class based on multiple measures of assessment, as well as class observations, discussions, and spot quizes, I see a very different trend. NCLB has pushed the education profession to stress everything toward one test, when everyone knows that one thing never makes up a whole. It really is an incomplete picture, particularly in terms of the complete absence of content area information. Critical thiking skills are the key to the future and pushing everything based on data from one lone source is sorely lacking in substance. Longitudinal information is helpful, but only when it is based on multiple measures of a childs development. We must remember that statistics tell many stories depending on how the information is framed. What is the old quote "Lies, D### lies, and statistics."

According to your statistics I am in the top 5 to 10 percent of 3rd to 5th grade teachers in LAUSD.

However, I am the exactly the problem with test driven systems. I teach to the test. I do NOT teach music, art, health, computers, social skills, or literature. My students do not get to attend chorus. My students do not get to do projects. My classroom is ugly. There is no creativity in my classroom.

I knew this day was coming. The day that someone would take the mountain of test data we produce and start pointing fingers at teachers and summing up the totality of their professional career with a cute little chart like this one. Never mind I can see flaws in the numbers you quote in your article. The fact that you use wildly different and unrealistic numbers from example to example really makes me question the validity of your interpretations. Contrary to your inferences, teachers have been looking at this data for years, we do use it to guide instruction, and based on my years of experience, the numbers you quote in your article don't make sense.

Unfortunately, when you base the entire education system by judging schools, school districts, students, and teachers on one test a year; you create teachers like me: Teachers that do NOTHING other that teach to the test. My homework is xeroxed pages from test prep books and the month before the CST is me grinding students through pages of test release questions. Welcome to modern education. All hail the CST score. Welcome to the machine.

Yet somehow, I think America needs leaders and thinkers and not the drones my classroom produces. However, as long as my professional competency will be judged by the numbers on a single test, I will warp my entire curriculum to scratch and crawl for a few points gain, because that's what matters...right?

I appreciate the opportunity to receive this information. I am definitely disappointed and realize the gravity of these results. I feel that I have let my students down. I have worked tirelessly to meet the needs of my students and if there is something else I can do to better serve them...I will.

During the 2007/2008 school year, I was absent a couple of months before and during state testing due to surgery.

"Learning is not attained by chance. It must be sought for with ardor and attended to with diligence."

-Abigail Adams

Wow. It was surprising to see where I stand in the district. Being at a school in the bottom 200 and always hearing we are doing enough . Even though state print outs showed my students being pretty good it is a surprise to be most effective. Little quiet brief off the record feed back was occassionally whispered by previous administrators and coaches. One year I excelled at some distincton but details were never elaborated other than the local district director of instruction was very pleased. Excellent to challenged effective practices are keep hushed. However, I don't support merit pay because saw the avalanch of competivemess run out of control in Leeburg and Marion County Fla in 2007. Thank you for info

It is unfair for teachers to be judged based on student test scores. First of all, students are not put in classes randomly. There are certain requirements that need to be met. Students are placed in classes according to English proficiency levels. Teachers are not allowed to select a particular class, only a particular grade. I happen to work with the lower ELD levels. I usually work with students who have not progressed in English proficiency despite the fact that many have been here in the country since kindergarten. There are reasons for this. Some of these students have learning disabilities that have not been identified, others need glasses or hearing aids, a few exhibit challenging behaviors that affect not only their own learning, but the learning of other students in the classroom, and some may simply be slow learners. Many of my students have gaps in their learning, and do not have the academic vocabulary needed to perform well on these tests. However, the district expects us to follow the same pacing plans despite the fact that many of my students learn differently. Additionally, since students also learn from one another, they need peers who can be role models. When students are grouped based on their English proficiency level, the lower ELD level students tend to lack good role models. Another reason why it is unfair to judge teachers this way is because test scores do not tell you if a student left the country and returned, only to be present in one's classroom for 1 or 2 months. In cases such as these, of course their scores are going to go down, they missed most of the instruction. Test scores do not tell you about special circumstances a child is undergoing such as a death in the family, moving to a new place, divorce, or illness, just to name a few. All these factors can affect how well a student learns and performs. Yet another factor that affects student test scores includes directives a teacher or teachers receive from administrators. Administrators don't just evaluate us, they also give us directives which we must follow. One final note I'd like to add is that test scores are not segregated by English Language Development levels. Two teachers working with English Language Learners might have extremely different results if one of those teachers works with ELD levels 1 and 2, while the other works with ELD 3-5. If students were placed randomly in classes, and all teachers were given the same directives, then I could see how your way of measuring teacher effectiveness would be valid. Since this is not the case, you are unfairly judging a teacher's competence.

I would like to acknowledge that these scores are taken from my first 5 years teaching. I am positive that if my very first year was removed there would be a marked increase in my ranking. Like anyone else, my effectiveness as an instructor has vastly improved with time and the gains made by my students on the CST in recent years have been outstanding. I believe that parents of my students would agree that their children experience much growth during their time spent in my class.

Additionally, I have been assigned to teach the Gifted and Talented cluster for the past 5 years. Though my students perform well and make gains, they often come to me with high test scores to begin with. There is not room in the standardized system for my students to gain more than 10-15 percent in their scores because many are already scoring above 85%. So, when losses of 2-4 percentile points are what put a teacher in the "less effective category" bear in mind that the students who have experienced any losses while working with me are often still scoring in the proficient or advanced range on the CST.

This model may have been better served if it used the performance indicators of Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced and ranked teachers on their ability to maintain students in the proficient/advanced range or move them up a level, rather than focusing on very small percentages of gain or loss.