And this is how we’re going to respond to this? Really?

I can’t say I’m all that surprised by today’s LA Times article addressing teacher effectiveness; it said nothing surprising about the importance of effective teachers; LAUSD sent out a phone blast to its employees on Friday essentially warning us of the impending article; a union-related listserv I subscribe to hotly debated the level of vitriol with which to respond to the Times both before and subsequently after the article was published; value-added analysis has been something of a hot topic in education reform discussions of late.

All that being said, I’m worried about the implications the article – not the findings – have on the continuing hunt for the “bad” teachers (now publicly searchable) working with America’s youth. I’m reading this from a bunch of perspectives – as a union member participating in committee work around teacher effectiveness, researcher within an urban school, and Department of Education employee: I have many concerns as I read the article. However, my opinion here comes solely as a frustrated and still hopefully optimistic teacher. And as a teacher, I’m worried that I’m now going to be judged on my natural talents and not those that are being fostered through development from the district or other support networks. The article focuses on the importance of individual teachers without looking at how teachers become effective or suggesting anything other than the notion that effectiveness is a permanent, immutable status. Why is there less focus on how teachers improve? On the impotent “professional development” that does little than caterwaul about problems within instruction practice? On how resources can be used to triage teachers like John Smith?

I say all this also frustrated that the LA Times paints a false picture when stating that “the most effective teachers often go unrecognized, the keys to their success rarely studied.” Lately, I’ve been wading through significant heaps of research around teacher effectiveness. I’ve been discussing with WestEd’s Ken Futernick the way school turnaround emphasizes the importance of teachers as leaders and empowered individuals; we’ve discussed recent work by Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullen. I’ve been reading research about how three effective teachers in a row essentially close the achievement gap. I’ve been a part of a Freshman Academy that specifically recruited perceived effective teachers within Manual Arts to best address the needs of the most at-risk grade at the school. There is plenty of research about teacher effectiveness (these links being solely the stuff I’ve been reading on effectiveness over the past two weeks) and still the LA Times has chosen to frame the debate about education reform around individual teachers.

Of the many points also made, I don’t agree with the way the article seems to negate class as a factor in looking at student performance. Though “other studies of the district have found that students’ race, wealth, English proficiency or previous achievement level played little role in whether their teacher was effective” and “contrary to popular belief, the best teachers were not concentrated in schools in the most affluent neighborhoods, nor were the weakest instructors bunched in poor areas,” a distribution of resources, the culture within schools based on SES and the role of stringent imposed mandates all weigh heavily not only on teacher effectiveness, but consistent student outcomes.

Lastly, I feel concern for the way that teachers and my union will respond to this. While I feel disappointment at the missed opportunity that this article has in shedding light on needed steps of reform, I’m surprised by the way some UTLA members chose to respond to the article by complaining about parents, students, and communities. Though this is not at all exemplary of all teacher points of view it is yet another way blame is being shifted for the problems highlighted.

With this acting as the introductory piece in an ongoing series of articles highlighting education within Los Angeles, I’m skeptical of positive change arising from the work the LA Times has published. We’ll see how the opportunity for public commenting from teachers within the study pans out over the next few weeks.