Remember the furor over the Los Angeles Times's release of point estimates of value-added measures they had cooked up from test scores? A number of people raked the Times over the coals for violating journalistic ethics, and these included many who think it's either acceptable or necessary to include student outcome data in teacher and principal evaluation (and that group includes me). Rick Hess expressed concern with overcaffeinated value-added enthusiasm, and someone else (I forget who) wrote that the Times's release of the database was an understandable error given the refusal of either LAUSD or UTLA to consider using student data to help evaluate teachers or even help teachers improve. In fact, a number of pundits/wonks sort of blamed UTLA and LAUSD for the lapse in journalistic ethics: if only they had been willing to use student data, this never would have happened.
So in a place such as New York City, where the union and school district had bargained the use of such data with an explicit agreement that the data would be held confidential, what happens? Journalists go on the rampage again, some wonks are making the same argument they did in L.A., with different facts, and Arne Duncan again goes blindly forth. Juan Gonzalez's reaction seems on target to me: in a manner that is highly reminiscent of the Juan Williams fiasco, some New York journalists and the NYC Education Department are using the L.A. Times story to give themselves permission to act badly.
Fortunately, the NYCED and UFT agreed Thursday to postpone any release of data until a later hearing, or an agreement on how it should be done. Here's hoping that cooler heads will prevail in this case.