A big First Amendment Kiss** to the Los Angeles Times and reporters Jason Felch, Jason Song and Doug Smith for their recent stories about LA public schools. The Times applied statistical analysis to seven years of student test scores in order to measure teachers’ effectiveness in math and English instruction. Using an outside consultant to parse student test data obtained under the California Public Records Act, the Times’ created and published online a database of “value-added” ratings of 6,000 third-through-fifth grade teachers and 470 elementary schools.
The Times’ number-crunching of student test scores, tied to individual teachers, does what the LA Unified School District had refused to do–not because administrators didn’t want the information, but because of resistance by teachers unions and their political allies. In effect, the Times’ reporting bypassed the education establishment to provide directly to parents comparative information they can use to evaluate their kids’ teachers and to hold their schools and the education bureaucracy accountable.
In the culture war of attrition over education reform, this was a big development.
Not surprisingly, the Times stories have generated a lot of heat. The LA teachers union called for a boycott of the newspaper and said the planned publication of the teacher database was a “reckless and destructive move.” Academics friendly to the status quo attacked the Times’ statistical methodology–which focuses more on students’ improvement (or lack of it) than their absolute scores–as unreliable
Also weighing in: the American Federation of Teachers (urging the local union to be more flexible) and Obama administration Education Secretary Arne Duncan (saying the Times’ analysis is valuable both to parents and teachers). The LA school district, after some initial hesitation, announced it wants to use the Times’ analysis as part of the evaluation of teachers, a change that will require a renegotiation of the union contract.
The Times coverage, by creating and disclosing valuable information, strengthens the voice of the public interest in an institution long controlled by special interests. It is an example of public service journalism at its best. –Peter Scheer
————-
* *A kiss is just a kiss, but a First Amendment Kiss is FAC’s honorific for those who, by their acts, words, or example, strengthen the claim for freedom of speech, for transparency in government, and for political accountability. Our First Amendment Kiss-Off is reserved for those persons and institutions who, whether out of distrust of citizens or undue deference to special interests, threaten to curb robust debate and exclude the public from the councils of government. Please help us find deserving recipients of the First Amendment Kiss, and Kiss-off, awards. You can submit nominations here.