Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


NCLB Outrages

Don't blame tests for school cheating scandals

Ohanian Comment: Of course it's just a coincidence that online, this ad runs next to the editorial:

  • K12 Online High School: Learn From Home At Your Pace With
    K12 Accredited Online High School.www.K12.com


  • Stephen Krashen letter to USA Today

    Heavy testing: NOT the solution to improving achievement


    Re: Today's Debate, July 18

    USA Today thinks that the heavy testing required by NCLB was necessary because of poor student achievement, which in turn was due to inept teachers protected by unions and failing schools that were allowed to stay open.

    Not so.

    Studies show that American students in well-funded schools who come from middle-class families outscore students in nearly all other countries on international tests. Our average scores are unspectacular because the US has the highest percentage of children in poverty of all industrialized countries (over 20%; in contrast, high-scoring Finland has less than 4%). The major problem is poverty, not teachers and not unions.

    Poverty means inadequate nutrition, inadequate health care, exposure to environmental toxins, and little access to books, all strongly associated with lower school performance.

    The US Department of Education is planning the most expensive and extensive testing program ever seen on the planet, far beyond the already excessive amount required by NCLB. Increasing testing does not lead to increased achievement, and the money should be spent protecting children from the effects of poverty. When all our children have adequate health care and access to books, and no child is left unfed, American academic achievement will satisfy the harshest critic.

    SOURCES

    American students in well-funded schools â¦

    Berliner, D. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism,
    Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. In press.

    Bracey, G. 2009. Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality. Educational Research Service

    Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics
    achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13.

    Poverty and hunger, health and access to books:

    Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential

    Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership 55(4): 18-22.

    Martin, M. 2004. A strange ignorance: The role of lead poisoning in âfailing schools.â http://www.azsba.org/lead.htm.

    Increasing testing does not increase achievement:

    Nichols, S., Glass, G., and Berliner, D. 2006. High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability increase student learning? Education Policy Archives 14(1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/.

    Editorial

    The wrongdoing was systemic and the coverup sophisticated. Documents were altered, and materials were withheld from investigators. Whistle-blowers were punished, and one of the most blatant perpetrators won plaudits, raises and bonuses.

    Another Wall Street scandal? Sadly, no. A year-long state investigation found that nearly 180 educators in Atlanta's public schools had engaged in rampant cheating on standardized tests.

    The scandal punctured one of the high-flying success stories of school reform and is all the more unsettling because suspicions of cheating are becoming more common. Baltimore is suffering through its own scandal. A USA TODAY investigation this spring found statistical indications of cheating in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Washington, D.C.

    Perhaps this should not be surprising. Test results affect the pay and job security of both teachers and administrators, so the temptation to cheat is powerful. Too little was done to guard against the risk, a problem that will likely be corrected now that it has been exposed.

    The greater danger is that the scandals are being used by teachers' unions and others who have been trying for years to block the accountability tests have finally provided, particularly under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which requires states to administer annual reading and math tests to students in grades 3-8.

    The act is up for reauthorization, and a coalition of groups plans a "Save Our Schools" rally July 30 in Washington to call for an end to using the tests in evaluating students, teachers and schools.

    The law, built on state testing initiatives, became necessary because for decades millions of students graduated without being able to read or do basic math. Inept teachers kept their jobs, and failing schools stayed open. The law exposed the severity of the problem, particularly in poorer, minority dominated districts. Now that the test results are finally leading to solutions, more testing will be needed to assure continuing accountability.

    Besides, "high stakes" tests have been around for decades â the SAT and ACT to get into college, high school graduation exams, advanced placement exams to determine college credits â but only students faced the consequences.

    To be sure, standardized tests shouldn't be the only measure of a student's knowledge or an educator's performance. But given the depth and breadth of the school reform movement they've ignited, it's hard to deny their value.

    There are plenty of ways to police them effectively. These include using independent monitors; limiting access to the tests before and after they are administered; and barring teachers from monitoring exams in their own classrooms.

    One example among many can be seen at the highly regarded Osmond Church School in Queens, N.Y., where each teacher and student signs an honors pledge before test days. Principal Valarie Lewis brings in substitute teachers so she can deploy co-proctors. She uses "checks and balances" even though the whole atmosphere at her school is a deterrent to cheating.

    Students are the ultimate victims of scams to fake higher scores. They are being written off as hopeless by teachers who believe the only way to raise their scores is to cheat. Then they're being lied to about their achievement level. When they graduate without necessary skills, they'll be the ones to suffer.

    If the cheaters in Atlanta had put as much time, effort and ingenuity into raising test scores as they did into their schemes, their students might have hit their targets honestly.

    Note: Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff.

    Opposing View: Opposing view: High-stakes tests trigger cheating

    by Deborah Meier


    We all can agree that cheating is unethical.

    But it's also a fact that cheating is the regrettable but "predictable fallout" from the misuse of high-stakes standardized testing.

    That's just common sense. Shopkeepers know that they will lose a little if they keep a stack of newspapers for sale outside the store, but they won't take the same risk with more valuable merchandise. That's because they can predict the results.

    The point? Every time we raise the testing stakes, more cheating will result.

    While I expect teachers to be more honorable than bankers and hedge-fund operators, I assume they are subject to similar inducements and pressures. Just because teachers are not too big to fail doesn't make them immune from self-interest. Especially as no student suffers from getting a better score than he otherwise might have gotten.

    In the "good old days" when I began teaching and test scores were first being reported by the local press, cheating started to rear its ugly head.

    Before that, test publishers told us that any kind of test preparation at all was cheating. At most, teachers would provide kids just 15 to 20 minutes of practice items immediately before the test.

    But times have changed and so has testing. Test publishers used to warn against using scores to make important decisions about students and teachers.

    But over the past 45 years, testing has become ubiquitous, and scores have had an escalating impact on children â starting in nursery school. Parents with resources even began to take test prepping into their own hands, often hiring expensive tutors.

    As a result, the nature of schooling changed, as did our definition of "achievement" and "intelligence." Even jobs that do not require any "academic skills" now use success on standardized tests as a gatekeeper benchmark.

    In reality, the system has been cheating rich and poor alike of what constitutes a serious education. But there are better ways â at no greater cost â to make judgments about a student's work and a teacher's effectiveness that are not subject to abuse.

    So let's change the inducements and pressures that our testing mania has encouraged, because cheating corrupts us all.

    Deborah Meier is a teacher, principal and author. She won a MacArthur Foundation "genius" award in 1987 and is with the Forum for Education and Democracy

    — Editorial, Deborah Meier, & Stephen Krashen reply
    USA Today
    2011-07-18
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-07-17-test-school-cheating-scandals_n.htm


    INDEX OF NCLB OUTRAGES


    FAIR USE NOTICE
    This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.