The current LA Times controversy regarding their value-added statistical analysis of teacher performance is a tricky one. By conducting a rigorous, value-added analysis of teacher/student data the Times has brought to light a cause and effect relationship between teachers and the standardized test scores of their students. That's a big deal and they should be commended. But just because the data is there to assess who does a better job teaching kids to perform well on standardized tests doesn't mean that there is enough data to conclude who are the best teachers. Standardized test scores are an important predictor of a student's success in later life, but so are social and emotional life skills that have also been reliably measured and quantified. And unfortunately, the data available to the LA Times reflects only teacher performance as it relates to standardized test scores and not as it relates to the development of social and emotional competencies.
Recently, the Los Angeles Times analyzed data collected by the LAUSD to assess teachers and their performance based on standardized test scores. The LA Times analysis yielded several important findings, not the least of which is that "Highly effective teachers, the ones who consistently and dramatically raise their students' test scores, are fairly evenly distributed among schools and across different levels of experience and education." But the LA Times didn't stop there. It also cited a teacher by name that scored poorly and one that scored well on the value-added analysis and plans to publish the names and scores of all 6,000 teachers assessed.
Without a doubt, students' scores on standardized tests are a significant factor in assessing the effectiveness of their teachers. The LA Times' reporting is important and commendable, as is the fact that the LAUSD collected the data in the first place and made it available to the public. But here's the problem: standardized test scores are just one factor in rating a teacher's job performance. When teachers' ratings with respect to how their students perform on standardized tests are the only performance indicator readily available to the public, it presents a lopsided picture that can be taken out of context and used against individual teachers in ways that are tough to predict and could damage reputations. (For a more in-depth discussion of the method of analysis itself, and its implications on teacher performance, check out Charles Kirchner's HuffPo piece from last week.)
The focus of this controversy -- whether or not to publish teachers' names and associated test score data -- has received national attention even though it is in some respects a red-herring. An argument can be made that the major public policy controversy here lies not in the publication of the value-added analysis but that it is the only data readily available. The reporters and the editorial board of the LA Times have acknowledged many times that this data should not be the only factor used to assess teacher performance. But it is the best data the LA Times (or parents, or schools or anyone else who is interested in teacher performance) has to work with.
And why is that? Perhaps it is because there is a serious misunderstanding among schools, media, parents and policy makers that factors other than standardized test scores can be measured accurately. Just take a look at this excerpt from an LA Times Op Ed piece written by Sue Horton:
So much of learning, and of excellent teaching, involves intangible things that happen during the school day, interactions between students and teachers that defy quantification. But if the data we have show us that some teachers in a public school system are far better than others at helping kids master the essentials, the public should know that, and the system should study what those teachers are doing right.
And then, once we realize how much such assessments can tell us, perhaps we'll develop a way to measure the equally important but less tangible kind of learning that comes from a tea ceremony.
I appreciate and agree with Ms. Horton's sentiment that there is real value in the quality of learning inherent in a tea ceremony (and those familiar with my work will know I'm not kidding). I also agree that the value-added test score data should be studied to learn what some teachers are doing right. But here's my issue: the "less tangible kind of learning" that she points to is not only measurable but has been systematically measured, yet that data is usually not given it's due.
Life skills programs teach the less tangible qualities Sue Horton refers to in a variety of well-established ways. A recent meta-analysis of good science (controlled outcome studies of school-based youth programs by reliable research institutions) by the Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) linked life skills programs for kids to the following student gains: Improved social-emotional skills; Improved attitude about self; Improved classroom behavior; and get this, an 11 point gain on standardized achievement tests. The CASEL meta-analysis of life skills programs also showed that students studied were at a reduced risk for conduct problems, aggressive behavior and emotional distress.
By publishing some data about individual teachers' performance, with no way for parents to easily collect other equally reliable data, the LA Times runs a significant risk of not only damaging the reputations of good teachers but of providing yet another disincentive for teachers to cultivate anything other than standardized test performance in their charges. I doubt that naming names would be as effective a means of making institutional change as taking the long view, staying with the story, and keeping a light on all those involved to see how they use this data for the benefit of the entire system (schools, families and the community).
Follow Susan Kaiser Greenland on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sKAISERg
Kevin Welner: Tough Times at the L.A. Times: Standing Behind Incorrect Teacher Ratings
Yes, continue to argue for no judgment what so ever! Teachers are above reproach! Just keep the taxpayer money rolling in! Oh, and all the money you can steal from the food stamp program, too!
Notice how the Huffington Post just skips over the opening of LA's new $578 BILLION school? Probably not, as the HP just ignored it! Even if this school lasts 50 years, it will cost $2750 per student, just for the building! Criminal!
That's right, no judgement! All the teachers should get raises, too!
And how does criticism of a sleazy press stunt necessarily imply a unwillingness to evaluate teachers in a reasonable fashion?
The teaching profession has been soooo successful at those areas for the past 30 years. Time to try something else like private schools and choice!
My school recently traded off one of our worst teachers. Everyone knew this teacher was terrible. Children disliked her. Parents loathed her. But we could not get rid of her. It was a coup when our principle was able to entice her to leave, and replace her with a better teacher.
Why was it so hard to get rid of this teacher?
I think many parents in California are starved for data on the quality of their children's education. All we have is the API score (a school-level, or sometimes ethnicity within school-level measure). Many parents spend 50% more on their house just to guarantee a spot at a high-API elementary school.
I don't think anyone would say that the LA Times data is definitive. But it is an important first step, and there will be an inexorable progression towards quantifying teachers' skills.
The fact that phenomenon A and phenomenon B occur together does not necessarily mean that A causes B (rather than both being correlated to C, or even B causing A) That's why you have to eliminate other factors. It's basic statistics.
For example, a given teacher tends to work at the same school pretty consistently, which means that if something affects student performance in a school, all the teachers' results will suffer too and schools are correlated to a number of factors that are more plausible causes for good/poor test scores
e.g.:
- teacher-student ratio and available textbooks, computers, etc.
- underfunded schools also tend to serve communities of students that are more likely to be malnourished, exposed to environmental toxins, required to choose between school and working to pay for groceries/rent, and/or afraid to come to school because they live in what is essentially a war zone.
-Special-ed schools also have bad test scores, but that doesn't make it a good idea to punish special ed teachers
All of these strike me as more plausible candidates for cause of good or poor test results than a magic "value-added teacher" factor that is (among other things)impervious to teacher experience or education.
Unintended consequences can be a --*cough*-- they can be a very bad thing.
Why should teachers be unaccountable? They are paid with other people's money!
Sound to me that many of the teaching profession should look for another line of work!
Nobody disagrees with the assumption that there are some pretty awful teachers out there, maybe this is because of the 50% turnover of teachers within 5 years given the intolerable behavior and total unwillingness of LAUSD to address the subject needs of the students or maintain minimum discipline, which might impact ADA. This is not the teachers fault.
Ironically, as I wait to have my name submitted to the LAUSD Board for dismissal as a teacher, I am painfully aware that teacher accountability will not be used to get rid of bad teachers who go along with LAUSD institutional incompetent, but rather good teachers that try to teach all students at the highest level. At www.perdaily.com we try and talk about what is really going on in public education and how to fix it.
Scary... are we (again!) fooling ourselves in accommodating to competition and the objectification of children and their educators to "standards" which are nothing else but discriminative and cynical manipulation of the many for the profit of very few? Please think: do we want to produce the "cream of the (material-onl...y) cream" through schooling, or do we want all children to develop their unique and creative human capacities to grow and interact in balanced ways with others and with this little planet? Einstein was right, and his words are generous stimuli for each one of us to look inside and around and decide what we are doing here. Let us build decent lives for ourselves and give children better choices than the available ones - which produce nothing positive, to say the least. Thanks for listening! Rubens Turkienicz
I've taught many at-risk students in regular LAUSD schools and charters. A good 75% of them had test anxiety and low self esteem. I agree that Life Skills classes are important.
It took almost the whole year to build the students skills and esteem but by the end of the year my students did well on the California Standards Tests. Do you think my administrators ever said to me, "Wow, how do you do that?" No, they said, "The scores better be higher next year." And then made me attend hours and hours of workshops on how to raise test scores.
Between the teacher lay offs and teacher bashing two very important things are going on. Young people aren't going into teaching. And good teachers are retiring or leaving the profession. This is the real problem. Check out the Craigslist ads for teachers. Online high schools want certified teachers to teach for $12 and hour. It seems that soon the only people who can afford to stay in education will be the administrators, whether LAUSD or charter, who pay themselves much like the Bell city council.
Test scores are easily measured *and* associated with particular teachers. That's but a small part of the whole story. I'd hate to see widespread publication of what is, in effect, incomplete raw data.