The editors first approached individual LAUSD district officials for the student test results, but none would release the data. So in late July 2009, Felch and Song went to the top: Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines. When they met, Felch and Song had armed themselves with numerous arguments to convince the superintendent to give them the raw scores. Much to their surprise, Cortines said yes. Yet this did not mean the Times got the data right away. Special Projects Editor Marquis wasnt surprised. She says:

Theres a difference between getting the superintendent to say, sure, you can have it, and getting the school district lawyers and all the bureaucrats underneath him to release it to you, because there are federal laws protecting student privacy, and there are sometimes different agendas at different levels of an organization. ^[7]

Listen to Julie Marquis on getting government data:

On October 5, the Times filed a formal request for the data using the California Public Records Act. Meanwhile, there were other issues on the table.

Appropriate Role ? From the moment the Felch-Song proposal began to work its way up the ranks at the Times, there were ongoing discussions about whether it was appropriate for the Times or any news organization to rate teachers. After all, wasnt that the responsibility of the LAUSD? But Song and Felch learned that, as long ago as 2006, an internal LAUSD report had recommended using value-added to evaluate teachers. The school district, however, had ignored the recommendation for fear of complicating ongoing union contract negotiations.

It seemed to me that although the task would be complicated, that if we could do it in a solid, accurate, meaningful way, that this could be a really important step towards transparency. Thats something that is really at the heart of a news organizations role.

The newspaper was under no such constraints. Parents, LA Times staff believed, had a right to know about the effectiveness of those teaching their children. Informing the public, including parents, was the mission of a newspaper. Many felt the Times would be performing a service that, for political reasons, neither the LAUSD nor the teachers union had taken on. AME Lauter, for one, found the project worthwhile. He says:

Listen to David Lauter discuss the project's value:

Finally, in November 2009, the Times received a first round of data from the school district, and then a cascade of material. The Times had agreed to various LAUSD conditions, such as protecting student privacy. Rating teachers was no longer a theoretical possibility; it was real. Reporter Felch was excited: Suddenly we had this massive data and we knew the power of what could be done with it. So then we set about doing it.

Earlier in the fall, Felch had researched consultants who could conduct the value-added analysis should the Times get the data. He recommended Richard Buddin, a respected education economist from the RAND Corporation. Buddin was an expert on teacher performance, teacher evaluation, and value-added analysis. In November, with the data in-house, it was time to bring Buddin on board to get the project underway.

In December 2009, AME Lauter gave Editor Russ Stanton his first full briefing on the project. Stanton was enthusiastic, convinced that this could be an important contribution to watchdog journalism in Los Angeles. He encouraged Lauter to proceed.