The Los Angeles Times has added fuel to the fire in the teacher effectiveness debate with its series of articles analyzing individual teacher performance, as measured by student achievement gains. The LA Times analyzed data for more than 6000 3rd through 5th grade teachers in LAUSD and created a database that can be used to compare the effectiveness of individual teachers. These data were analyzed using a value-added methodology, which shows whether students made better-than-expected progress from year to year on standardized tests. The value-added approach allows a student's progress to be measured against his/her own past performance, which means that any gains made beyond what was expected could presumably be attributed to the effectiveness of that student's teacher.

Not everyone, including the head of UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access, is convinced of the validity of using a value-added analysis of student achievement data as a way to measure teacher effectiveness  and teacher unions have been highly critical of the LA Times for publishing these data, but Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is encouraging the sharing of information on teacher effectiveness. Duncan rightfully asks "why, in education, are we scared to talk about what success looks like?"

But how should success be measured and how should these data be used? Is it appropriate to assess teacher effectiveness based, at least in part, on standardized tests? Don't the public, and especially parents, have a right to know this information about their children's teachers?  How can these data be used to improve teacher training and support? Shouldn't teachers themselves have access to this data? What is the best way to create an objective, meaningful and reliable system for measuring teacher effectiveness? And how should teachers be involved in developing that system? What do you think?