澳门跑狗论坛

Recently, a New York state court heard arguments around whether or not to publicly release value-added scores of 12,000 New York City teachers. The court hearing came only a few months after the controversial release of Los Angeles teachers鈥� scores. In late August of 2010, the Los Angeles Times began publishing a reporting on the quality of teachers and schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District, or LAUSD. In addition to the articles, the paper created a public, online database of individual teacher scores giving readers the power to hunt down 鈥渢he ineffectives鈥濃�攖hose teachers who apparently cause and sustain the achievement gap, many of whom, according to the Los Angeles Times, do so unknowingly. In this series, not only were we introduced to 鈥渢he ineffectives,鈥� we were also given one of many tools, value-added measurement, or VAM, to root such teachers out, and more easily identify 鈥渢he miracle workers鈥濃�攖hose teachers capable of leading their students to score higher than a statistical model predicted they would.

When we conducted an analysis of the discourse that surrounds this debate, what was most striking was not the fact that the scores were released, but the ways in which language was used to question and/or silence questions about the implications and outcomes of VAM. Though teacher effectiveness seems like a rallying cry the country can unite behind, the shape of the conversations about its measurement threatens to divide us.

When the Los Angeles Times published this series, the newspaper got what it wished for鈥攁 nationwide ripple effect鈥攁 discourse dispersed in talk and text that simplified and glorified the implications of a useful but not all-powerful tool. Throughout the series, the newspaper set up teachers as either one thing or another: effective or ineffective, good or bad, a detriment or a savior. With McCarthy-era tactics, the paper鈥檚 series flooded us with profiles of extreme-case formulations鈥攅xamples so good, bad, or surprising that they almost seduced us into believing that 鈥渋neffectiveness鈥� could be lurking anywhere, unbeknownst even to the teacher himself or herself, regardless of certification, reputation, or experience.

The Times forgot to share what those who study teacher effectiveness have been arguing for the last decade: Effectiveness is not a monolithic thing, but rather teachers are more or less effective across different subjects, students, and circumstances. So far, conversations about value-added measurement seem to use language in ways that present a single view of teaching and position teacher effectiveness as something static that can be estimated by a single statistic. Those who believe teacher effectiveness is flexible across subjects, students, and varying demands do not suggest that all teachers are good at something鈥攕ome aren鈥檛鈥攂ut rather that the complexity of roles and expectations for teachers requires them to have a dynamic profile of effectiveness. Those who talk about VAM, as if it were both the crystal ball and the Holy Grail for education reform, would love for us to believe otherwise.

While it may seem that this debate is new news, in 2009, months before VAM was twinkling over the Los Angeles Times鈥� presses, several issues of Educational Researcher, the pre-eminent education research journal, were devoted to articles that outlined the complexity of identifying, let alone measuring, effectiveness in teaching. Six years earlier, the Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics published a special issue focusing exclusively on VAM. The overall conclusion of the editors was that VAM was valid only for school-level, not classroom-level, comparisons. Ironically, concerns around the reliability of value-added measurement are no longer central to the debate about publicly releasing individual teachers鈥� scores. Instead, its validity is most often called into question for the reason summed up by Charles G. Moerdler, a lawyer for the American Federation of Teachers, in . 鈥淭he information has no critical basis other than to facilitate a libel,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f it鈥檚 garbage in, it鈥檚 garbage out. Just because it鈥檚 a number, it doesn鈥檛 mean it鈥檚 suddenly objective.鈥�

While the outcome of the New York court decision is pending, several New York news outlets, including The New York Times, have asked to publish the city鈥檚 teacher scores. But before New York news sources make the same mistake that their counterparts in Los Angeles made鈥攎aking VAM seem like a litmus test capable of revealing who is and who isn鈥檛 an angel or criminal in the classroom鈥攊t may be useful to draw upon conversations about VAM that stretch back a bit further than this past August.

Ironically, the very researchers who were popularizing and citing the findings of earlier research aided by value-added analyses are now often quoted in opposition to some of its uses (e.g., Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Ravitch). Most education researchers are quoted as arguing for 鈥渕ultiple measures鈥� of effectiveness, yet these measures are never described. The plea for multiple measures is therefore constructed as a fuzzy, unknown bundle of 鈥渙ther鈥� things鈥攁 soft, teacher-defending, union-loving idea with no evidence, let alone a 鈥渞eal鈥� name. Yet, the names of those 鈥渙ther鈥� things could be readily released: observational data; parent, student, and peer survey responses; portfolio reviews; and lesson analyses. Also, it鈥檚 important to remember that two 2010 studies, one performed by researchers from Mathematical Policy Research and another by John P. Papay from Harvard University, showed that even if measured twice in the same year, approximately one-third of teachers categorized as 鈥渆ffective鈥� one year were categorized as 鈥渋neffective鈥� the very next time, either because effectiveness is subject to dramatic change or because the measure itself is unstable or unreliable to begin with.

In in October, Joel I. Klein, the outgoing chancellor of the New York City schools, wrote, 鈥淪o what is value-added data and what can it tell us? It starts with the idea of fairness.鈥� His response, 鈥渋t starts with the idea of fairness,鈥� makes the concept of VAM seem rational, perhaps even inherently useful. Yet, while Klein purportedly supports the use of VAM, the New York Daily News reported that he also acknowledges 鈥渢hat the rating system doesn鈥檛 tell the whole story about teacher performance.鈥�

These conflicting perspectives are a construct similar to the logic of the Los Angeles Times: Value-added measurement is not perfect, but it鈥檚 the best we have. In the end, this not-so-perfect-but-it鈥檚-the-best-we-have approach to measuring teacher effectiveness is positioned as rational, with the questions around the reliability and validity of VAM minimized.

The language deployed within this debate is not used to engage in substantive discussion about what is being measured and how. Instead, language is being used to sensationalize the topic, with extreme-case examples often used to counter alternative perspectives. For instance, the lawyer representing the United Federation of Teachers constructed the release of value-added scores as a life-or-death scenario, being quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: 鈥淭he city of L.A. did this and a teacher jumped off a bridge. Do we want that?鈥� This not only functions to associate a tragedy with the VAM score release, but also positions those who favor such measurement as supporters of something that threatens the lives of teachers, thus adding urgency to and further polarizing the debate.

Another tactic, which has been taken up by New York news sources, is linking discussions of and references to tenure鈥攁 traditionally divisive topic鈥攖o discussions of publicly releasing teacher scores. Though peripherally related to notions of accountability, and ways of measuring 鈥渆ffectiveness,鈥� tenure seems to be made relevant almost as a diversionary tactic. This may work to remind people which side they should be for and which they should be against.

We argue that the use or release of value-added-measurement scores does not have to be an issue of tenure, seniority, or job security. Perhaps in New York, there is still a small window of opportunity for a more intelligent conversation鈥攐ne that puts VAM into context for its readers; one that allows counterarguments to add caution and clarity, not hype and mudslinging, to an already divided and politicized education community. Though it is easy to say everyone is united around the idea of the need for effective teachers to be in every classroom, the exaggerated importance of a single statistic as a means for assessing teachers may divide us once again when it comes to measuring and encouraging the kinds of teaching all students deserve. The way we choose to write and talk about VAM may make all the difference.