Even though education experts slammed the LA Times for ranking LA Unified teachers based on a flawed metric emphasizing test scores above other factors, the Times went ahead and published the article anyway. Last week we learned that the lowest rated teacher was, in fact, a successful and beloved teacher who eschewed the tests in order to ensure her students had the English language skills they needed for a lifetime of success.
Today comes a much more dark and tragic story of another teacher who was given a low ranking in the flawed LA Times article. Rigoberto Ruelas, a teacher at a school in South LA who had been missing, was found dead of an apparent suicide in the Angeles National Forest above LA:
“Based upon the entirety of the investigation, the evidence indicates he took his own life in this tragedy,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Capt. Mike Parker said….
KABC-TV Channel 7 quoted family members as saying that Ruelas was distraught about scoring low in a teacher-rating database recently made public by The Times. He had been missing since Sept. 22. South Gate Police Officer Tony Mendez told KCAL-TV Channel 9 that Ruelas was unhappy at his database ranking….
In the database, Ruelas is listed as “less effective than average overall.” He rated “less effective” in math and “average” in English.
The president of United Teachers Los Angeles, which has come out strongly against the public release of teacher names and “value-added” ratings, released a statement calling on The Times to take down the database, saying the union “predicted there would be problems.”
The Times issued a statement of “sympathy” for the family, but they have still not retracted their extraordinarily flawed articles and rankings. This shows why the Times was reckless to arrogate to itself the task of providing a high-profile and flawed teacher rankings system.
As billionaires and hedge funds are launching their own effort to privatize public schools under the guise of “reform,” it’s more important than ever that we get educational assessments – of schools, teachers, and students – right. The Times has gotten it very wrong, and the consequences have now become tragic.
UPDATE: UTLA is calling on the LA Times to take down the flawed teacher rankings:
United Teachers Los Angeles President A.J. Duffy called the publication of the list of teacher ratings “despicable,” and the union — which had opposed publication of the list — issued a statement calling on The Times to remove it from its website.
“UTLA is appalled at the L.A. Times,” Duffy told KCAL. “We predicted there would be problems. This teacher was a great teacher by all accounts — loved by students, parents, and respected by his colleagues.
“I will be reaching out to Superintendent (Ramon) Cortines and Deputy Superintendent (John) Deasy to join forces to implore the L.A. Times to take the names of individual teachers and test scores off the website and cease and desist from publishing any in the future.”
Good to see UTLA fighting back against the LA Times’ indefensible use of methodologically flawed data. It was bad enough that the Times went ahead and published the rankings in the first place. Now that someone has died as a result, the Times should do the responsible thing and take them down.
Thank you Robert for covering this…
As a concerned teacher, I can tell you that educators feel it is completely inappropriate to judge teachers solely on test results. Yes, there are some ineffective teachers out there, and educators would love to be rid of them. However, for the majority of hardworking teachers, this method of judgement is completely unfair. There are many factors involved in educating a child. In addition to teacher effectiveness, one must consider socio-economic status, family support, possible learning disabilities, student motivation, etc… It is obvious that Mr. Ruelas taught at a Title 1 school, where students are typically English language learners from low socio-economic families. It is a challenge to educate these students. Despite the challenge, many dedicated teachers deliberately chose to work in these schools because they have a heart for the community. Because the students at Title 1 schools are considered at-rish, these schools will typically have lower scores than schools in more affluent areas. As a result, the teachers at these schools will most likely have lower test scores than their colleagues at more affluent schools. I know this from firsthand experience. Four years ago, I chose to leave the number one school in our district and move with my principal to a Title 1, low-performing school. We both felt we wanted the challenge; that it would refine our skills and make us more well-rounded educators. The first year, despite my efforts to keep my curriculum and expectations high, I went from 100% of my students scoring proficient or advanced (at my previous school) to 75% of my students (at my current school) scoring proficient or advanced. Did I change my teaching methods or the curriculum? No, in fact I worked even harder. Should I be reprimanded or scorned for this? No, in fact I feel I should be praised for my willingness to bring a high-level of education to these at-risk students. Shame on the LA Times for putting undue stress and embarrassment on this committed, well-loved teacher. Maybe the journalists who insist on judging teachers this way should visit the classrooms of the teachers, whom they have never even met, to witness firsthand the effectiveness of their teaching before judging them unfairly before the public.
If the data about teachers were true, then rating some teachers down would be justified even if they didn’t like it.
The odious thing about the LATimes smear job is that they didn’t even get the stats right. Calitics linked to the best article I’ve seen on the subject.
Aside from the fundamental problems of whether the tests adequately measure all skills, and whether two multiple choice tests per year, even if excellent, can measure progress, there are some basic methodological statistical problems. E.g. sampling isn’t random. Results such as that black teachers perform worse than white teachers, or that teachers, any teachers, with Asian students in their classes were magically better than others — all that should have alerted everybody at the LATimes to the huge bogosity factor involved.
It was an absolute travesty of journalism’s ethics to have published that drivel. They should have their Pulitzers revoked over it.
Anything he’s for, I’m just about sure to move to the contrary.