Robert Edward Borowski

Robert Borowski's Response:

I was sure I was an effective teacher before the L.A. Times told me so and actually I'm a "most effective" teacher according to one arbitrary database. But I know that some of my colleagues who are good teachers won't be rated as such, and that's unfair.
There are so many other factors to consider when dealing with student achievement that your writers glossed over. Even worse, they portrayed teachers as excuse making racists. I've taught for over 14 years and hopefully have made a beneficial impact on my students lives. According to the formula you espouse, I'm in the top five percent of my profession so maybe my experience and my newly anointed title of “most effective” teacher will carry some weight when I tell you that based on anecdotal evidence, socio-economic status, and the level of education the parents have attained hugely impacts the ability of students achievement no matter how motivating I am or how hard I teach. Additionally, 5th grade students today are faced with far more distractions than we grew up with. I'm not sure how the saying goes, but this isn't your parents elementary school. Yes, teachers should be held accountable but is this formula a true rendering of a persons worth and performance, and should you be ridiculed in public for trying to do a job few would even try? On that note, I have not received a raise, or even a COLA (cost of living allowance), since 2006. I make $61,000 a year with a doctorate degree and 14 years of experience - that is less than the night janitor with a GED makes with overtime at LAUSD.
The last point I would like to make is this: should we rate and evaluate newspaper writers on who misquoted, misspelled, or flat out fabricated stories and put their names and pictures (or even their retractions) on the front page? If that were the case, the person who was responsible for proofing your LAUSD value-added measure of performance pages should be on the Time’s front page next to the “non-effective” teacher‘s picture, because of the glaring spelling and grammar mistakes I found there. Following that logic, what about firefighters who are not able to save someone? Should the headline go like this, “Firefighter 'A' according to data, failed to save 10 people this year while firefighter 'B' saved 3” leaving out many of the factors that go into saving lives. Should he be judged solely on that and not on all the factors that make up his job? Robert E. Borowski