Although my rating is high, I disagree with the appropriateness of this report. As a teacher I understand that there are so many factors involved in student test scores, that basing a teacher's rating solely on student test scores is unfair and just plain unprofessional. What do teacher's do with students who miss 90+ days of school? How about students who come to school without anything to eat? Are they expected to be proficient on test taking day? How about students on tracks in year-round schools. My students were expected to come back from a six week vacation and take the Standardized tests a week after they returned. That was unfair to me and to my students who felt the pressure of doing well on this test. In more affluent neighborhoods, children are sent to after school tutoring for which their parents pay for. Ofcourse, they tend to do better on standardized tests. How do my students, who are lucky if mom or dad is home when they get home, compete with those children? I understand that teachers need to be held accountable for our students' learning. However, using only the standardized test scores is not the proper way to judge a teacher. I oppose this report and am very offended by the publishing of this article.

Standardized testing is only one measure of a student's growth and may not accurately reflect a student's knowledge or the value that a teacher has added for that child. A 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Education stated that more than 90 percent of the variation in scores is due to student-level factors beyond the control of their teachers. Further, overemphasis on test scores often leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and rewards teaching to the test. As a result many important, but untested, areas of the curriculum may be omitted. This is not in the best interest of our students.

I work hard to engage my students in meaningful learning activities and their growth is evident throughout the year. One test cannot adequately assess what they have achieved. Over reliance on a single measure does not result in an accurate picture.

Your grading system looks almost identical to the individual Language Arts and Math report cards that are routinely sent to teachers each school year. Even the color bar graph is the same, but I think the numerical gradations are missing.

I do believe that the teacher is the single most important factor is a child's education, but I know that parental support is also a critical factor. All students are not equal, so comparing the scores of a class of gifted and high achieving students with the scores of those students at the opposite end of the spectrum seems blatantly unfair as a measure of teacher effectiveness. The teacher with the students at the bottom end of the spectrum must, on a daily basis, work many times harder to teacher his/her students.

Since I began teaching in 1967, I have had immediate, as well as, long term positive feedback from students and their families. 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 teacherand a life-long learner...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, dedicted 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? 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.
- Policymakers who are pushing programs like VAM need to listen to parents. Parents want teachers to teach the whole child, and that includes the arts and high-level thinking skills. They do not want us to create a “culture of bubblers.”

This is one type of measurement, based on a test that occurs at the years end. It doesn't measure anything that can't be quantified, such as student attitudes towards school, ability to work in groups, inherent motivations, etc. What will be interesting will be compare myself with a teacher at a very different school, who I know to be a fine teacher, and see how the change in zip codes affects our teacher "effectiveness".

If a student gets 600 on a math test one year, and "only" 580 the next year--i.e. they missed ONE question--that does that mean that I have been less effective? Going up or down a few percentile points isn't very meaningful.

I teach elementary school. My son did well academically, but I do know that when he was in middle school and high school, he was well aware that these scores meant nothing to him. For teachers in these upper grades, will the Times turn the CST's into a personality contest where students can judge their teachers by doing well or not on a test?

Publishing this type of information on a data base for public viewing seems to be premature and will result in a number of significant problems. You are giving parents one piece of data that will inevitably skew perspectives and will result in a lot of staffing issues as principals cope with all the parent requests to have only the "most effective" teacher. Unless they are one of those parents who already recognize the very limited usefulness of the CST scores.

By now, you must realize that this type of measure has gigantic flaws. You do not have any other data other than a flawed standardized test score. It does not take into effect the child' own desire to learn what is taught. Nowhere does it tell you if all of the children came prepared for learning that day or any day. The Times has chosen to browbeat the last person on the totem pole-the teacher. We have no control over what is taught or how the child will receive the lesson. But I am still disappointed in your newspaper. I only like the Sunday Times for its puzzle. Perhaps I will need to give it up soon.

First and foremost, I always tried to work with my students no matter where they were academically. My students were never on grade level which meant that I taught grade level standards and catch up skills. I always kept high standards for my class no matter what. I was always willing to learn more about how to teach a given subject, however, it is my belief that once teachers were not allowed teach reading or math without a script, students began to slip academically.

Secondly, our class sizes are too large. This last school year we were fortunate to limit class size in Grades 4 and 5 to 25 (still too large). When I first started teaching, I had a 6 hours Educational Aide. Our class was no more than 25. We were able to work with small groups of children. Supplies are also limited especially if the class gets over 30.

Thirdly, we need to be able to teach and then assess. If a student(s) did not get the concept, then I should be able to reteach the subject differently. But there was absolutely no time in the district lesson plans for this. My offer each year to the students was that they could come into my room before school, recess, lunch, and after school for any additional help. This rarely occurred, only those students whose parents wanted thr students to improve and could not do so at home.

I have been disappointed over the last several years how teachers are treated by the district and by other entities not involved with education. We seemed to be blamed for the failure of education. But I contend if everyone, including anyone not in the classroom, taught children for some period of the day, there would be success. There would be lower class sizes. Get rid of all scripted programs and let the teachers teach. There are too many people out of the classroom. If school received enough funding to make sure each child has what he or she needs to learn, then I believe education would improve. The Times could have used the money for this study to help teachers and schools improve. Teachers know when the students are not understanding something, but we are tied to a pacing plan that moves at the speed of a bullet.

Finally, after 36 years of teaching, I retired in May 2010. The teachers were being let go and I thought maybe 1 teacher could give a spot to one of these teachers. The fact that the school board gave away 250 schools and thought nothing about giving public money to a private school (charter), made me feel it was time to go. I believe that I could have taught at least 2 more years. I would have used this Times information to better myself--to improve the quality of my teaching. Hopefully my former school will provide adequate training in classroom discipline, how to teach to improve test scores and how to catch students before they fall between the cracks.

CST scores are not the only measure of a teacher's effectiveness and they don't sum up the whole child. What about students' social and affective development? What about their love for learning?
Their artistic and creative self-expression? Yes, I'm an effective teacher - but there's more to teaching than a CST score.

It is very sobering to see that you have been ranked one of the least effective teachers in your school or in the district. It definitely does not make me feel very good, but I will not let it get me down. I guess it means that I have more room for improvement than other teachers. I truly love teaching. I hope I am given the opportunity to improve in my craft.

Being that this information only represents one year of my teaching, it is hard to take seriously. I only taught grades 3-5 for the 2004-2005 school year. Since 2005, I have been teaching 7th grade, which is not within the grade level range you identified for your study. So... thanks for sharing what the LA Times thinks of my teaching...means absolutely "0" to me and any other true professional teacher because you know absolutely "0" about teaching. Once you have a teaching credential, fifteen years of experience, an administrative credential and a master's degree in education you can give me a call. Until then...don't really care what you all think of my teaching!

This value-added score seems legitimate, and I appreciate seeing it. When I consider how I struggled during my first two years of teaching and compare it to how much I improved in the years after that, I can see why my average value-added scores are what they are. Seeing this score every year would help motivate me to continue to improve my craft.