One criticism of the LA Times series evaluating individual teachers using a data method known as value added: that it is wrong for the paper, or anyone else, to evaluate public school teachers with their names attached. One prominent education author, Diane Ravitch, foolishly suggested on Twitter this morning that the Times was wrong to publish data on individual teachers because it would be like publishing mortality rates for heart surgeons.
That couldn't be more wrong. First, data for individual doctors might be a useful tool, and considerable amounts of data on individual physicians is available to the public. Second, teachers, unlike most surgeons, are public employees. They are hired by governments. They are paid by taxpayers. And they perform a profoundly public function. They are public figures, who deserve and require public scrutiny. The Times, by making public its data on teachers, is doing a public service.
Some critics of the Times, including the United Teachers Los Angeles, which has launched a foolish boycott of the newspaper, point to laws that protect the privacy of educational records. But those laws are designed to protect students, who are minors and who are required by law to attend school in this country. To teach is profoundly a public act, and a public trust. Public trusts require verification.
Teachers have tough jobs. They deserve more support. They deserve better funding for their schools, particularly in this state. But they don't deserve protection from public scrutiny. If teachers don't want to be evaluated in public, they should choose other professions.