or, for that matter, a civil society. It's long, but in this case,
appropriately so. Louie has much to say and we, to absorb.
From: Tom Louie
To: laamn@yahoogroups.com ; LAAMN
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:49 PM
Why My Los Angeles Times Ranking Does Not Bother Me
"Also, there will be a UTLA picket at the Times building in Downtown
Los Angeles on Tuesday, September 14, from 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM.
Your presence is needed! Bring your friends! "
By Thomas Louie, 4th Grade Teacher.
It is not so much for myself that I am writing this, but for the concerned
and upset colleagues that I see all around me and throughout the city. Also,
no amount of bravado can forestall the possibility that the agenda of the
Los Angeles Times will become reality because someone politically powerful
may lend it credence, even if we don't. Therefore, it is best to begin
developing our defenses and counter-arguments now. Just because something is
ridiculous, that does not mean it is harmless.
I know what kind of job I'm doing.
I personally am secure in the knowledge that I am doing a good job. I don't
claim to be a perfect teacher – I know my weaknesses, and I know what I must
do to overcome them. I have felt the glow of the "ah-ha" moment when
understanding dawns in a student's eyes, and, all too often, I have also
felt the sting of the times when a child just doesn't get it. I have
repeatedly gone through the soul-searching process of developing better
methods, and, over time and with the
help of my colleagues and academic research, I have come up with some pretty
good stuff. I am certain that my teaching has grown and improved, and that
what I'm doing is helping my students. Looking at last year's test scores, I
can see which students went up a level or two, because they accepted the
help that I offered them. On the other hand, I can identify many of the
students who went down a level or two as those who displayed lazy work
habits or uncaring attitudes. (Why does no one ever talk about students'
responsibility for their own progress??) I did my best for them too, but the
results have been largely predictable. And yes, there are a couple whose
results I can't explain on the spot. But I have a clean conscience and
sleep well at night. I think my fellow "ineffective" colleagues can say the
same thing.
I have been through this before.
This is not the first time that my professional integrity has been unfairly
attacked. Our Previous Principal was a Grade-A-Hole who decided that his
strategy for improving Miramonte would be to wage war on his own staff,
particularly the senior teachers whom he did not hire himself. And yes, with
him it was all about test scores. He was so fixated on the results of
standardized tests that he couldn't even believe the evidence of his own
eyes, at one point writing this insult-compliment on my evaluation (in
paraphrase): "Mr. Louie shows the ability to teach effectively when he is
being formally observed (!!!)." This Despicable Principal and his minions
were so obviously biased in their treatment of me that both of their
Below-Standard evaluations of me (2003 and 2006) had to be removed from my
file, by order of the District. (The District, of course, claimed no
precedent and no admission of wrongdoing – of course! ☺) Fortunately for me,
the Despicable One and his flunkies were just as lazy and stupid as they
were evil: they were never able to pinpoint what I was doing wrong, refused
to model a correct lesson for me, and in the end couldn't make anything
stick.
(Note: if you ever think you are being attacked by the Administration, keep
a log, take notes on what they say, take pictures of your class, keep the
Contract handy, and keep records of everything!!!)
Today, Principal Grade-A-Hole and his evil minions are gone, and I laugh and
thumb my nose at their memory. So, if I survived the Despicable regime, why
in the world would I be concerned about the opinions of an institution that
I respect even less???
We "ineffectives" are a very diverse group.
Looking at the list of teachers from my school that the Times has labeled
"ineffective," I am startled by their diversity. The list includes veterans
of decades as well as relatively new recruits. Without having spent that
much time in my colleagues' classes, I know that they represent a variety of
teaching styles. The list includes teachers who are considered strict as
well as those
who are relatively lenient; it includes teachers who give a lot of homework
and teachers who put less emphasis on homework; it includes teachers who
adhere strictly to curricular programs and teachers who diverge from the
programs. The list includes teachers like me who have been consistently
attacked and slandered, as well as teachers who have always been
well-respected and liked!
Some of them have given me some very effective teaching tips and strategies.
This diversity contradicts the original Times article1, which gave anecdotal
accounts of "effective" teachers having stricter standards and higher
expectations than "ineffectives," without any systematic or statistical
evidence for that. The main point is that there is no evidence for a common
trait that
makes these teachers "ineffective." Even if well-meaning District personnel
attempted to "help" us by sitting in each one of our classrooms and
observing everything we do for a solid month, they would not be able to
isolate what we, as a group, are doing "wrong" or even differently from the
"effectives" as a group.
The non-predictability of teacher rankings is backed up by studies showing
that Value-Added rankings are unstable from year to year. Specifically,
two-thirds to three-quarters of teachers at the extremes of Value-Added
results change to another quintile from one year to the next, while 20 to 30
percent of teachers change to the greatest extent possible, from bottom to
top, or from top to bottom.2
The greatest irony for me is that my fellow "ineffectives" include at least
one teacher whose success was used by the Evil Principal's minions to attack
me! This teacher almost certainly was unaware that my Despicable
Administrators were telling me, "This teacher teaches students like yours,
but gets better scores."
I do not resent the other teacher for this, because I do not want
divide-and-conquer tactics to succeed. This teacher is, by all accounts, a
great teacher and a great person, and almost certainly did not know his or
her success was being used to my detriment. And now, here we both are, on
the wrong side of the Times list, with other teachers' success being used to
attack us.
I would like to say, without any sarcasm or irony whatsoever, that I am
proud and honored to be counted in such company.
Real educators don't succeed by others failing, don't listen when others
belittle their colleagues, and help each other instead of competing.
(Education is not a race.) As the plaque on the front of the Confucius
statue at Cal State L.A. says, "Among truly educated persons there is no
discrimination."
The Times uses flawed methodology.
Not only is their methodology questionable, threatening the validity of
their findings, the very premise of evaluating student progress by
standardized testing is questionable. Add to that the Times' track record
for biased and even deceitful reporting on education.
About a decade ago, a Times reporter called me for a quote for a story he
was researching.3 His premise was that, in the wake of Proposition 227, the
District and UTLA would betray bilingual teachers by bargaining away the
bilingual stipend. He never found any evidence to support this; I certainly
didn't give him any, and neither did any District or Union source. As a
matter of fact, he turned out to be completely wrong: teachers of bilingual
classes still receive that stipend to this day, and when the District
unilaterally pulled the stipend for teachers of the new "Sheltered
Immersion" classes, UTLA appealed all the way to the Public Employee
Relations Board. Our Union never betrayed us. However, the Times still ran
that reporter's evidence-free story as
news rather than as opinion (which is all it was). This incident is typical
of what the Times does to serve its anti-teacher, anti-public education
agenda: the facts don't matter, and when they contradict the agenda, they
must be twisted to fit.
Another example occurred last year, when the Times published an
investigative report that purported to show how hard it was to fire
teachers.4 Anyone accustomed to critical thinking could have seen through
that article's unsupported conclusions. All the piece proved was that in
about one-third of the teacher dismissal cases that go before a state review
board, the firing is
reversed. That's it. There was no data presented about the number of
teachers who were successfully fired without the case reaching the review
stage, nor about the numbers of probationary teachers (who do not have the
right of appeal) who were fired. The article only focused on one stage of
the appeals process, which most cases don't even reach, and somehow failed
to mention that even at that stage the District wins two-thirds of the time!
And from this, we are supposed to conclude that firing teachers is nearly
impossible. This is not just a logical fallacy or lazy reporting. It is
dishonest propaganda.
With that track record, how is anyone who cares about the truth and the
facts supposed to take the Times' latest attack seriously? Apparently, the
Times is counting on people not caring about the truth or the facts, or
being too busy to consider the story critically. The most serious flaw of
the Times' premise is that it is a blunt instrument: the Times' data
controls only for the distribution of teachers in each school (see Note 1),
but does not consider any other factors that may have a great impact on
their conclusions: most importantly, the kinds of students each teacher is
getting. Students are not randomly assigned to teachers, and statistical
models cannot fully adjust for factors students may bring to the classroom –
like not knowing English.5.
Are the "ineffective" teachers being given students with less English
Language development? Even the Times has published articles about how
English learners score much lower on state tests.6 And what about other
factors which may affect test outcomes but are beyond a teacher's control,
like attendance, behavioral problems, family stress, economic stress, etc.7
The Times data simplistically ignores all of that.
Furthermore, the Times labels thousands of teachers based on their
Value-Added record over a seven-year period, but does not give users the
opportunity to see data for each individual year (see Note 2). Are we
supposed to believe that each teacher failed to raise their students' scores
each and every year? The Times database does not let us see, but I know that's
not true for me! So, the Times will not let us consider the possibility of
change over time. That seven-year period includes some years of great change
and turmoil in the curriculum, including the period when upper-grade
teachers were still getting used to Open Court, and also including the years
when we were being told to implement Open Court faithfully (in the
beginning) or more flexibly (recently). Do we get any leeway for that? The
Times won't tell us. Finally, the data isn't even complete: some teachers
are rated on the basis of as little as two years' data, while others are
rated based on three, four, five, or even seven years' worth of scores. How
can that be fair, or scientific? 8
Beyond questions of valid methodology, the most serious error is to think
that one measure of a student's performance – standardized state test
results – is the best way to evaluate a school system. We teachers know that
progress in learning is qualitative, not quantitative, and that success in
school and in life depends on these qualities that we try to instill in our
students: good study habits, and love of learning.
What do we do now?
First of all, we must show solidarity with each other. We absolutely must
avoid any criticism or sniping between teachers on both sides of the Times
divide.
Those of us who are skilled with research and information technology could
get a little sweet revenge by applying Value-Added models to L.A. Times
reporters. For example, we could post a reward for whoever leaks information
about the number of hits each reporter's articles get online. Presumably,
the reporters whose articles get less readers are "ineffective" in helping
to increase the Times' circulation. A ridiculous standard? Of course! Do you
see my point? Circulation revenue, while important, should not be the most
important consideration of journalism, just as standardized test scores
should not be the most important consideration in education.
The most important direct action you can take right now is to support your
Union's sanctions against the Times. Boycott the Times! Do not buy it or pay
for it online. Also, there will be a UTLA picket at the Times building in
Downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, September 14, from 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM. Your
presence is needed! Bring your friends!
In the long term, we need to put pressure on both the District and our Union
to not follow the Times' agenda. This bogus article is not as important as
the political hay some people may try to make out of it. Some District
officials want Value-Added to be as much as 30% of our annual evaluation! If
this proposal comes to the table, it must be firmly resisted. We must also
flood Sacramento with protests if they try to circumvent our Contract with
legislation, just as CTA just did with the defeat of the awful Steinberg
bill, (SB 1285/691), and just as NEA members did in Washington, D. C., to
get the Education Jobs Act passed. Get involved in your Union, follow
Contract negotiations, tell as many people as possible why the Times is
wrong, and most of all keep doing your job with proud optimism and
confidence in yourself!
Remember, the Times agenda is not District policy, the District cannot base
your evaluation on test scores, and it is a Contract violation if you get
called on the carpet about your Times ranking.
For more truth and facts, go to UTLA's page about Value-Added Models at
http://utla.net/te/backgroundinfo .
-Tom Louie, September 13, 2010.
ENDNOTES
1, Felch, Jason, with Jason Song & Doug Smith. "Who's teaching L.A.'s kids?"
Los Angeles Times. August 14, 2010.
2. Koedel, Cory and Julian R. Betts. 2007. ReExamining the Role of Teacher
Quality in the Educational Production Function. Working Paper #2007-03.
Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Initiatives.
See also McCaffrey, Daniel F., Tim R. Sass, and J.R. Lockwood. 2008. The
Intertemporal Stability of Teacher Effect Estimates. Unpublished manuscript.
3. Sahagun, Louis. "Bilingual teachers may face cut in extra pay." Los
Angeles Times. December 13, 1999.
4. Song, Jason. "Firing teachers can be a costly and torturous task." Los
Angeles Times. May 3, 2009.
5. CTA Research Brief. Research on the use of student test scores to
evaluate teachers. CTA Legislative Relations Department. August 2009.
6. "English proficiency and Stanford 9 scores [Graphic]." Los Angeles Times.
July 23, 1999.
7. For an examination of factors influencing test outcomes, please see
Baker, E., with P. Barton, L. Darling-Hammond, E. Haertel, H. Ladd, R.
Linn, D, Ravitch, R. Rothstein, R. Shavelson, & L. Shepard. Problems
with the use of test scores to evaluate teachers. EPI Briefing Paper #278,
August 29, 2010.
8. Los Angeles Times database:
<http://projects.latimes.com/value-added/school/los-angeles/miramonte-elementary-2/>
No comments:
Post a Comment