The union is (no surprise) going berserk. Below is the MEMBER ALERT they've posted on their web site – here's an excerpt:

This Sunday, the L.A. Times is expected to run an article on teacher effectiveness and how test scores can be used to measure it. It is written by the same reporters who wrote the series that sensationalized the issue of teacher job protections by focusing on a few egregious cases. We expect this new article will once again dramatically oversimplify complex education issues and create a skewed and unfair picture of hardworking, dedicated teachers.

The article will most likely involve so-called Value-Added Models (VAM). VAM is the latest fad among policymakers who want to distill the complicated, creative process of teaching into an overly simplistic evaluation model that relies heavily on standardized test scores.

By most definitions, VAMs use test scores to track the growth of individual students as they progress through the grades and see how much "value" a teacher has added. As part of the Times analysis, the reporters submitted a California Public Records Act request to LAUSD and received CST scores from 2003 to 2008. We have heard that the Times did an analysis of the test scores using its own criteria to create a database with teachers' names linked to student test scores. We do not know the details of the database, but it is an irresponsible, offensive intrusion into our members' professional life that will do nothing to improve student learning.

We urge all members to contact the Times and write letters to the editor. This is part of the continuing attack on our profession, and we must continue to fight back on all fronts. See below for talking points on what's wrong with Value-Added Models and using standardized test scores to assess teacher effectiveness.

They actually make a few good points, but of course paint an extreme picture. NOBODY is suggesting that VAM be the sole criteria by which teachers are evaluated, much less fired. But their complete rejection of this type of analysis is equally indefensible.

Much more commentary to come in future emails I'm sure…

----------------------