EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT value-added analysis and the recent move by the Los Angeles Times to publish value-added standings for teachers in the LAUSD.
One teacher who was singled out as ranking low is John Smith, a fifth grade teacher at Hillery T. Broadous Elementary.
My knowledge of Mr. Smith is limited to what the Times has published about him, and yet I feel in one way that I know him quite well.
When he was told of The Time's findings, he responded quite simply:
"Obviously what I need to do is to look at what I'm doing and take some steps to make sure something changes."
That quote reminded me of another teacher whom I once knew extremely well.
I spent my first six years after graduating from college teaching middle school and high school.
For the first two of those years I was quite possibly the worst teacher in the school.
We didn't have value-added analysis at the time, but if we had I am certain I would have come out far below Mr. Smith's ratings.
My classrooms were chaotic, I spent way too much of my time yelling at the class, I probably provided the counseling office with more than half of their disciplinary referrals, and a good portion of my students disliked me with a vengeance.
At the end of my first year of teaching, a small group of students in my first period class presented me with a wrapped gift.
That was such a surprise that I had tears in my eyes as I unwrapped it.
It was a picture of me that had been used as a dart board.
My response to all of this was very much the same as Mr. Smith's.
I went systematically about the task of looking at what I was doing, and figuring out what steps I needed to take to change things.
By the time I left high school teaching for graduate school, my classroom was one of the happiest in the school.
There was laughter from time to time, but it wasn't because we were clowning around.
My students were focused and busy at learning tasks, it had been years since I had raised my voice or sent anyone to the counseling office, and my students were learning.
Many came back from their first year in college to seek me out and thank me for how well I had prepared them.
Later, while I was earning my doctorate, I taught in the master's program at the same school.
The program I taught in used departmental exams to determine student's grades, and quarter after quarter my classes garnered the highest—something akin to a value-added analysis, since the students all started out equally ignorant of ancient Greek.
My point is that I agree with Mr. Smith that teachers can, and do, change.
And I agree with him that the first step is to realize that a change is needed.
But for that to happen a teacher needs some objective feedback.
I was so bad at the start that I wonder why they kept me on.
It should have been obvious to everyone—it was certainly obvious to me.
But I expect that many of the teachers who were classified as "least effective" by the Time's study don't have students giving them insulting gifts, and aren't screaming at their classes on a regular basis.
For many of those teachers, there has been little objective feedback to tell them that anything was wrong—that, in the words of John Smith, there was any need to "look at what I'm doing and take some steps to make sure something changes."
Teacher's don't have crystal balls, and it is notoriously difficult to judge one's own performance.
For this reason, the value-added analysis is good thing—even if the information is only given to the teacher directly.
But what about the other uses?
How should the information be used in teacher evaluations, and should it be shared with parents, as The Times has done?
Was it helpful to Mr. Smith, or to his students, to have his name and picture put in the paper?
Leave your comments below...
