California Teachers: Hot or Not?

Value Added and Reduced.


This week, the LA Times published the findings of a study of teachers and effectiveness. 6,000 third-fifth grade teachers, from all over California, were rated and ranked from “most effective” to “least effective.” The top 100 were highlighted in their own column.

Bombshell! Teachers across California must be rattled. In a world where tenure has reigned supreme for decades, suddenly teachers are being reduced to numbers. A California fourth grade teacher can look herself up, on the LA Times website, and find her rank. And so can anyone else.

How did they decide who was Hot and who was Not?

The LA Times developed this ranking on one statistical value derived from one place: standardized tests. While not complicated, it does take a little explanation:
1. Researchers compared a student's performance on state-wide standardized tests from one year to next year.
2. The difference in scores reflected a higher score, a lower score, or the same score.
3. After each student's net change score was tabulated, the students were grouped by teacher.
4. Each teacher group's average net change score was determined based on these numbers.

This “Value Added” score, the Times argues, allows for anyone to see what “value” any teacher has added to any of his students. Simple. Clean. A raw piece of data-- just what we love.

Ah, but not so fast. Data's beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Those who challenge the data have some great arguments against the analysis. First, the data all hangs from the chain of the quality of the standardized tests. A 'good standardized test' has proven to be the the single hardest thing to build in the realm of student evaluation. Holy Grail hard.

Second, it's not that ONE test has to be terrific: the first year AND the second year test must give an accurate measure of a student's acumen. And then every subsequent test that is used in this manner. Furthermore, these tests must be built together in order to measure growth; the tests must work in concert in order to have comparative value.

Finally, the 'Value Added' score doesn't measure ability-- it only measures change. Take one example of the many scenarios that skew the data. Think about what happens when comparing a teacher with kids who start with an average of 95/100 to a teacher with kids who start out with an average of 45/100. The teacher with the better kids, weirdly, has a terrific chance of being ranked as a poor teacher.

However, those who support the data build a strong case, too. First, every teacher (and student) is measure using the same test. Subsequently, no matter how 'good' or 'bad' the test is, everyone is handled with equal fairness (and unfairness). This is true even in comparing first year to second year tests-- it's fair because everyone is measured with, theoretically, the same stick.

Second, no small number of students who had 'a bad day' will skew the data simply because all of the students took the test. Arguably, a nearly equal number of students would have had 'a great day' taking the test. The size of the sample smooths out the inconsistencies or anomalies. The more years this data is collected, the less the effect of accidentals.

Finally, supporters say, the data show that where a kid comes from (class, ethnicity, and gender) are far less important than the kind of teacher she has. This is good because we can finally separate the data about student achievement from the data about teacher achievement. The Value Added model focuses on growth as opposed to talent or natural endowment. (Richard Buddin, who wrote a paper about the data collection, loves to say the word 'endowment.' You have to love using that word earnestly. I implore you to work the word 'endowment' into conversations you have today.)

Find Buddin's work here http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55538493.pdf

These are just the arguments about the data and its collection. The hot and nasty arguments are about philosophy, cultural values, and professionalism. Rightfully, some of the argument centers on whether or not information about teachers' evaluations should be made public.

I'd like to offer a broader perspective.

The idea of ranking teachers is ridiculous. It doesn't serve to improve the profession; it only serves the media's love of bite-sized information that allows for thin conclusions. Henry I. Braun, in his treatment of Value Added Assessment, warns of the dangers of "casual interpretation" of data. The amount of ugliness that will follow the Times posting this information may very well swallow any other productive dialogue.

It takes a quality blindfold to pretend that something is rank-able just because it has a number attached to it. It's a shame that the solid journalism that supported this research has been shared in this way. The LA Times decision to rank the teachers has turned California into a Miss America contest. A beauty pageant isn't about beauty: it's about winners and losers. Revamping education will require a much wider, more informed view than that.

That said, evaluating teachers (like evaluating anything) requires some hard statistical data. Toss the ranking; keep the data. The “Value Added” Score provides non-anecdotal information about a teacher. For this reason, this statistical information, despite its potential flaws, is not only useful. It is important.

Stats like “Value Added” are essential. And, they are the future.

As you will read in my long-awaited final installment of “Scapegoats and Saviors IV,” at least part of teacher evaluation must come from a number like this. It cannot-- and should not-- be avoided.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/teachers-investigation/
Check out the LA Times to read the article yourself. I'd love to hear what you think about it.


If you really want to dork out (and I highly recommend doing so), peruse the scholarly work (including that of Buddin and Braun) on how and why they did the Value Added model.
lookee here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-value-added-sources,0,6109096,full.story

Mosque-a-rade

James Madison said it would be better if we fought with ourselves.

In order to replace the centralized power of a king, emperor, or simple majority, Madison supported a system of warring factions. The irritating arguments on the TV and internet grow directly out of this idea. Because the writers of the Constitution built a system in which shifting partisanship replaced autocracy, we often find ourselves in rather Jerry Springer-like exchanges.

“These supporters of the Mosque are unAmerican! It's like the Nazis putting an ice cream parlor at Auschwitz!”
“Those who would deny the right of believers to build worship houses are unAmerican! How can anyone be so disgusting as to use this as a political weapon?”
“I don't know who my baby daddy is! And I don't care! I'm in love with my grandmother!”

The recent media kerfuffle over the so-called “Mosque at Ground Zero” affords the perfect cross section view of how the rich and lively politicization of our culture can unfortunately distort even our most simple values.

Madison's colleagues, the Constitutional Framers, made absolutely no bones about the importance of the separation between Church and State. These complicated men saw Tyranny (with a capital T) as the bane of civil stability, freedom, and growth. These people knew the Bible intimately; they also knew the writings of Locke and Rousseau. Almost all were churchgoers.

But they knew of the political obstacles of religion. The colonies represented an escape from religious intolerance and State-imposed beliefs. When Ben Franklin, that old charmer and partier, proposed that the Constitutional Convention should begin daily meetings with a prayer, the Framers voted it down. This isn't a legend. I saw and read Franklin's proposal, in his own handwriting, at the Library of Congress this past weekend.

(You have to go to the Library of Congress. It is so cool-- seriously, you will freak out. They have the most amazing stuff. Goosebumps, man. Not the book series-- I mean actual goosebumps on your arms. And neck.)

Wary of the monarchs and aristocracies of Old Europe, the Framers wrote and ratified a document that ensured that certain personal freedoms would be held as our most valuable. The First Amendment of that document identified the principal and preeminent of freedoms: liberty to think, believe, imagine, communicate, and protest.

The Framers sought no byzantine legal system of overseeing religion. They intended the government to simply stay out of personal spiritual business of the citizenry.

This separation between Church and State has provided no shortage of political division in our country-- and yet the most hardened partisans agree on the core idea. The government is to offer no special treatment or bigotry towards any religion. If one follows the civil laws of our country, then one can believe anything one wants.

Our government, therefore, may have no legal position on methods, or places, of worship other than on those that violate the law. It's astonishingly simple.

Those who call for the government to act on the “Mosque at Ground Zero” are, in effect, asking for the government to act in a “extra-Constitutional” manner. Keep this in mind the next time such a call comes from a voice from that also claims to support “smaller government.”

It's hard for me to imagine a better way for the “terrorists to win” than for us to depart from our most cherished values in the name of security or “sensitivity.” The reason “American values” infuriate the Islamic extremists is that, as the Framers knew, personal freedom dismantles the tools of tyranny. Freedom is contagious.

Bin-Laden has publicly decried the “godlessness” of America. His argument against the West is fundamentally religious in nature. He rallies extremists against the malevolent insensitivity of the Americans building military bases in Saudi Arabia. Al-Queda's stated goal is to expel American influences (bases, markets, churches, etc) from the sacred land of Islam.

How ironic that some in our culture would use the same argument to expel an Islamic prayer room from the sacred site of Ground Zero.

Conversely, how powerful for our country to remain steadfast to its Constitution, and the Church-State separation, even at our most sensitive and vulnerable underbelly.

To paraphrase Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and orchestrator of partisan bickering: may the better argument win.

Sigh. Indeed.

Saviors and Scapegoats III

“What we've got here is... failure to communicate.”


I like to reference Cool Hand Luke because it's such a great movie. Seriously, reread this article's opening line in your head with that dude's crazy voice from the film. Hilarious. Anything going wrong at any work place is on display in Cool Hand Luke. That movie ain't about prison. It's about business.

Education is business. Or, at least, that's how we like to talk about it. It's a losing government business, almost as financially stupid as defense. And education has been inching towards the “free market” for years. From standardized test vending to tutoring super-businesses to charter schools, private industry has been making inroads into “public” schooling for years.

Battle lines are drawn here. The teacher unions are against privatizing. Business leaders are against public spending that raises taxes. Liberals tend to be for budget increases in education. Conservatives tend to be for slashing budgets in education. (Disclosure: I am an elected representative in my school's teacher union. And I'm making bank in that gig! Disclosure again: I am not making bank. It's like $350 a year after taxes.)

This is the failure to communicate. We can't talk about better teachers because we can't stop talking about taxes.

Public Education Gets Kicked In the Privates

The debate about taxes, specifically public funding vs private funding, might be the most polarizing political argument in our country. Innovation in schools, like innovation in anything, costs money. Therefore, innovation, change, and growth in the field of education divide people right on the same line as taxation. Which is to say: most people do not seem to favor spending more money on education.

Duh. We've married “improving education” with “raising taxes.” It's like wedding “chocolate fudge sundaes” with “root canal work.” Can you imagine enjoying Ben and Jerry's on your couch while watching a stereophonic HD documentary of a dentist drilling cavities? This is what happens when people talk about improving education. They hear the high pitch drill of higher taxes.

So, the private sector looks like it may get another win. Charter schools, home schooling, industry incentives have all made it to the table. I already mentioned how private companies develop the standardized tests like the SAT and AP. Private answers to public problems have been winning all over our culture. In education, this is probably a good thing, at least in the near term. We might get beyond just talking about taxes and actually talk about innovation.

But long term, the private sector has troublesome issues. As awesomely awesome as the free market is, it runs best on customer satisfaction. In fact, it runs like a champ on the sweetest tooth of satisfaction: immediate gratification.

Put It In My Mouth

McDonald's doesn't do well because people appreciate the nutritional value of its food years after the food is gone. It does well because we eat it and enjoy it right now. No one takes a moment to reflect and say, “Five years ago, I ate an 800 calorie Big Mac instead of a fresh organic salad. (pause) Man, that was smart.” Big oil doesn't run the world economy because it makes long term sense. Using dead animals and plants that are millions of years old to power everything is astonishingly stupid. But who can care when we need to get somewhere in a car?

Doing something that is more expensive and less enjoyable doesn't really float in the free market. We spend way more on diet foods, books, and cosmetic surgery than we do on fitness. Like I've said, teachers must be free to be unpopular, irritating, and completely "unsatisfying" (in the immediate satisfaction model).

The Teacher Brain Drain

So, if the public model allows for those awful teachers I mentioned in part II and the private model works on a system that has trouble incentivizing teachers to be independent of customer satisfaction, what do we do?

I'm working on it. Generally, the private sector has a much better model to increase spending based on good quality. Likewise, the public sector does a much better job of sustaining stability regardless of economic conditions (or quality). I suspect we need to find a way to make public and private play more nicely together. And we need to a lot more imagination, as a country, to get around that corner.

But the radioactive conversation of taxes keeps directing us into the wrong conversation. It's not about HOW we pay. It's WHAT we are willing to pay for.

We need to bravely address the most important fact of education: great teachers make great students.

It's simple. We need well-trained, innovative, cream of the crop, badass, well-paid teachers. We need to entice talented people from the better paying, more respected gigs of our culture and get them in the classroom.

I think we start with tenure. I'd wager that if we do this right and people will be more willing to pay more for education, publicly or privately.

Check out part IV, the final installment of this series, for my thoughts on how to do it.

The Carla Bruni

Mixology.


Ponder, if you will, the lemon.


Yellow, so perfect, we say the color after the fruit. A scent that conjures spring and summer. "Lemon" sometimes means broken or flawed-- but, more often, it means clean and wonderful.

As comfortable in silver bowl at Versailles as in a plastic cup on the boardwalk, the lemon is a diplomat. Cuisines from Europe to Latin America to Asia literally depend on it. The lemon might be the most elegantly pedestrian fruit in the world. Tart and refined, the lemon freshens ice water and kitchens alike. It is a cure to fishiness and filth; as a flavoring, it replaces vinegar or salt-- or both. It is sour yet bracing; with sugar, it opens like a flower. It brightens Christmas garland, dresses shop windows, and provides designers a polestar of sunshine.

It's skin is pliable yet firm, like a fine leather. The lemon nearly explodes its perfume when cut and its sections seem to almost emit sunlight. The zest from the rind christens hands and rooms with its oil.

The lemon is beautiful. And I have the perfect drink for it.

You'll need a bottle of a Lillet Blanc to make it but, despite how difficult it can be to find, you won't be sorry. You'll get through the bottle fast, too; Lillet is lovely on its own. But put dress that Lillet up with some lemon, add tea for structure, and you've got a supermodel in your hands.

Named for a pop star who captured the heart of a head of state, this cocktail never forgets where she came from even as she leads you by the hand onto her balcony. You might invade a country. Or, at least, buy a fantastic suit.

The Carla Bruni

6 oz of Lillet Blanc
4 oz of unsweetened iced tea
2-3 wedges of fresh lemon

Get a solid glass from your cabinet, something you usually drink water from. Nothing fancy; every glass becomes pretty with Carla in it. Take a wedge of lemon and run it around the edge of the glass, then squeeze it into the glass and throw the lemon in there, too. (The seeds are fine with me but, if you aren't a fan of them, squeeze the lemon through a sieve or cheese grater or whatever.) Fill the glass with ice. Pour the tea in the glass. Squeeze another wedge of lemon and then add the Lillet. Stir with a spoon and then, if you like, add one more wedge of lemon for garnish. I certainly do.

Oh, and feel free to mess with the proportions to your taste.

The Carla Bruni. You'll swear it's good for you. And that's because it is.

Another original iBlogAmerica cocktail.