What is a Good Teacher?

On August 26, 2010, the LA Times published the names of teachers evaluated in a project entitled "Los Angeles Teacher Ratings." 6,000 teachers were included in this study, along with their full names and level of "effectiveness" in the classroom according to the Times.  There were five levels of "effectiveness": Least Effective, Less Effective, Effective, More Effective, and Most Effective.

The LA Times' reasoning for the study was "to make the ratings available because they bear on the performance of public employees who provide an important service, and in the belief that parents and the public have a right to the information."

The data used for this study came from standardized test scores from the past 7 years.  The analysis of the data is known as "value-added," meaning it comes from statistical scores from standardized tests, and, in using this data, a student's proposed progress is projected into the future. The "value-added" part comes from the difference (or in some instances, addition of) from the actual scores and the projected scores. 

As an educator, I have a definite problem with this study for a few reasons.  Here are my main gripes:

1. In looking at the FAQ page, which the LA Times included because of anticipated backlash and questions, they clearly state that the scores are "estimates, not precise measures, and readers should not place too much emphasis on small differences in teacher percentiles."

So, the LA Times printed teacher names and publicly listed their effectiveness for everyone to see without having completely accurate information.  Why do I think that if this happened to other members of mid-level professions that there would be a lawsuit? Is there anyone who would want their yearly review published in the paper for everyone to see? Imagine people at the grocery store, the doctor's office, your pharmacist, and your friends commenting on your review.  They have made individual teachers public targets. If the LA Times wanted to bring relevant information to the public, they should be responsible and provide something accurate.

2. Standardized tests are an incomplete way to prove effectiveness.  There are many, many facets to teaching in a classroom. There are the daily teaching duties, obviously, but there is also the diagnosing of students' learning differences, working with students who have non-native English skills, working with difficult parents and living situations where the student gets little sleep, doesn't eat well, has no place to study or no home at all, working with students who have chronic health issues, and, of course, working with administrators who have their hands tied with budget difficulties and/or differences in approaches to curriculum.

Also, some students test well while others struggle under time restrictions.  Standardized test scores can be swayed by a stomach-ache. Should this, too, be a factor in teacher effectiveness? Standardized tests are not considered the "gold-standard" for student success—so why should it be for teachers?

3. In publishing these value-added scores, certain schools come under fire, and most of these schools are struggling because of issues unrelated to standardized tests.  Budget cuts, over-crowded classrooms, and incomplete or missing books, not enough desks, ruined black/whiteboards, and technology issues inhibit learning.  If these schools that don't get the basic needed supplies are shown as having the "least effective" teachers, then what could encourage great teachers to work at those schools?  What if a teacher was rated "effective" at one school and moved to another school that has struggling students?  Suddenly this new teacher is now "least effective." What then?  Also, these scores were over a 7-year period.  What about students who have transferred in or out? teachers who have transferred in to a new classroom? They are now part of the value-added system, in the new classroom, even though they haven't been at that location for 7 years.

It is deeply concerning to me that teachers in California have to be put on display like this. People who don't understand the school system and its dysfunction may make judgments on whether or not teachers are "effective." With the unfortunate death of Rigoberto Ruelas, 5th grade teacher at Miramonte School in south LA, who was deeply upset after being labeled "less-effective," hopefully the Pacifica Unified School District will support teacher privacy, continue to encourage teachers through professional development opportunities, and fight for effective student/teacher ratios.