Join the conversation

Could the LA Times' decision to publish teachers' value-added scores have a chilling effect on school research? That question came to me as I read about a case in Arizona. Arizona officials are seeking the names of teachers and schools that took part in a study of the state's policies on teaching English, even though those teachers and schools were promised that their names would remain confidential. Needless to say, many in the research community are none too pleased.

The UCLA study found that the state's ESL policies were doing more harm than good. The state isolates English language learners so they can study only English for several hours every day. UCLA researchers found that this practice does not narrow learning gaps but does raise the specter of segregation. State Chief Tom Horne argues that he cannot rebut those findings without full access to the data used in the survey.

His opponents counter that schools will never again open the doors to researchers if they feel their anonymity is at risk. Researchers (like many reporters, I might add) will often go to great lengths to protect the identity of their subjects. Human subject research guidelines demand it.

So, does the LA Times story present a similar case? Richard Buddin, who performed the analysis for the Times, did by his own account protect the identity of his subjects. The Times linked student and teacher identifiers to actual names after he finished his analysis. Those data were, apparently, public information.

But I worry that the LAT's actions could deal a real blow to school research. Now as never before, we need schools and researchers to join forces in tackling our toughest problems. How else will we span the gulf between research and practice? Distrust of outside observers is already running high, and the LAT story didn't help.