by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

As everyone knows by now, the Los Angeles United School District decided to publish a list ranking all of the system’s  6,000 elementary school teachers based on students’ standardized test results.  One of the most prominent proponents of the proposal was Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who said that the decision was an excellent way to recognize the best educators in the district.  I and many other people who have made a career of standing in front of students in a classroom found these remarks both troubling and inaccurate.   I find Secretary Duncan’s latest argument in favor of the practice very predictable.  According to Mr. Duncan, “In other fields, we talk about success constantly, with statistics and other measures to demonstrate it…Why, in education, are we scared to talk about what success looks like? What is there to hide?" Duncan added, "Every state and district should be collecting and sharing information about teacher effectiveness with teachers and - in the context of other important measures - with parents."  Unfortunately in an attempt to connect all of the dots to justify this decision Mr. Duncan has used some very suspect reasoning.

Misconception Number 1

The Secretary’s first mistake is to equate the LAUSD rankings to the use of statistics in other professions.  A quick look at the use of data in the most number-consumed vocation, major league baseball, shows the weakness of Mr. Duncan’s argument.  Every day on the nation’s sports pages one can find a listing of the best batting averages, home runs, victories, strikeouts, etc.  However, a baseball fan with even a minimum knowledge of the game understands the complexity of such numbers. They are aware that the player with the highest batting average or the pitcher with the most victories is not automatically the best in their league.  There are a significant number of other factors that must be considered when evaluating MLB data.  What is the quality of the player’s teammates?  For how many years has this athlete performed at this level?  Is this season an anomaly or is it the continuation of years of excellence?  What additional talents does the player bring to his team?  The actual value of a Derek Jeter cannot be measured with a few numbers.  In fact, sometimes such figures are completely upside down.  Several years ago there was a pitcher who lost twenty games in a single season. This number represented the most defeats by a wide margin. Using this singular measure this player would be viewed as the worst pitcher in the league.  But anyone with a basic knowledge of the game knew that was not necessarily the case.  At the time, a strong argument was made that in order to lose that many times, a team actually had to have a great deal of confidence in the talent of the individual. Only a pitcher who was adjudged to be competitive would be allowed to continue to play enough games to reach that level.  Thus a highly negative number, after all is said and done, proves positive.  That statistical disconnect presents a question to be asked of Secretary Duncan.  Would the average L.A. parent understand enough of the subtleties of teaching and testing to make equally educated judgments?  Can a single number next to a name give that kind of perspective?  And of equal importance do the tests measuring student performance have the same validity as the extremely precise numbers used to evaluate a baseball player?

Misconception Number 2

The marriage of the media and teacher evaluations that Mr. Duncan envisions may not end in wedded bliss.  Unlike the Education Secretary, the media is not enamored with good news stories.   Bold headlines are reserved for disasters not celebrations.  This approach was demonstrated in the original article about the release of the teacher rankings by the LA Times.  In a related link to the story was a picture of a teacher in front of a room full of students.   The caption read:  “Over seven years, John Smith's fifth-graders have started out slightly ahead of those just down the hall but by year's end have been far behind.”  While showing the more successful fifth-grade teacher would have been in line with Mr. Duncan’s stated desire to celebrate great teaching, this approach was a demonstration of traditional journalistic instincts.  Consequently, the story becomes a negative for Mr. Smith and his students or teachers and education in general.

Misconception Number 3

Mr. Duncan does not appear to understand the subjective nature of many measurement tools in education.  He may approve of the “one number tells all” LAUSD approach to rank teachers but would he approve of similar methods directed toward students?  Would he endorse evaluating a student’s overall performance with a simple look at the numbers in the grade book?  Or would he prefer a more nuanced approach that takes into consideration whether the student was in an ELL class and had a deficit in English?  Should a long-term absence for illness be factored into the mix?  Does the student have a learning disability or an unstable home life?  If a student transfers from another school with a weak background should some extra time be considered?  Evaluations of students and teachers require different tools but there are parallels.  The data being considered in both cases requires a high degree of sophistication.

Improving education is complicated.

The need to create an evaluation process that identifies the strengths and weaknesses of teachers is critical. Finding a tool that will improve a successful educator’s performance and expedites the removal of an under-performing one is an essential goal.  Creating precise tests to determine student mastery should be a priority.  But the Secretary of Education and other leaders must understand that using public exposure through the media, although easily accomplished, is not the best avenue toward achieving these objectives.