Huge academic cheating scandal in Atlanta

[themusicteacher]

http://news.yahoo.com/americas-biggest-teacher-principal-cheating-scandal-unfolds-atlanta-213734183.html

So, anyone with an ounce of sense could see this sort of thing coming when standardized tests became the end-all-be-all in education. My issues with testing are myriad but I think it boils down to the fact that everyone was looking for a silver bullet, one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter solution to some schools (and students) not doing so well. Beginning with the idea that measuring our test scores against other countries' is functionally misleading at best and meaningless at worst and ending with the notion that you could actually make schools better by putting intense pressure on teachers and administrators, NCLB has been almost entirely an unmitigated disaster (the exception being that it helped to shed light on schools that were were terrible). A few questions arise:

1. Does this sort of thing prove anything other than teachers don't want to lose their jobs (or want to receive their incentives if they're available) or their funding? For example: does it show they really care but that the problems are too big to solve given the time frame and available resources?

2. Does this help prove that we need to rethink high-stakes testing or that, in fact, we need to redouble efforts and place even more emphasis on testing? (after all, if it means so little, why cheat?)

3. Since we'll doubtless see more of this, does it say anything more about the education system other than people will do what it takes to not lose jobs, funding and local control?

4. Is this an indictment of that particular district and those involved? The educational system in general? Legislative boondoggles that ask too much of or restrict schools too much? Our society?

It should be more than obvious to anyone who observes or is involve in education that these issues have been a very long time in coming and there are no easy answers as to how to solve the problems. This scandal is likely, IMO, symptomatic of much larger problems from many facets of not just the schools but America in general (anti-intellectualism being first and foremost in my mind).

I'd love to hear thoughts and comments on this, particularly from educators and admins.

[Complexity]

A great many teachers, administrators, and politicians should be fired, and many of them should be placed on trial.

[Orangutan]

The Freakanomics book had something on this. It had some interesting text on how you detect cheating, but more so proposed that by rewarding and punishing administrators and teachers on the results of standardized tests, you have created an incentive to cheat.

[Mr. Purple]

The Freakanomics book had something on this. It had some interesting text on how you detect cheating, but more so proposed that by rewarding and punishing administrators and teachers on the results of standardized tests, you have created an incentive to cheat.

Funny! I just watched the movie last night - then heard this report this morning. In the movie, there is a whole sequence on the rampant cheating in Sumo wrestling. I remember thinking about the parallels.

The economist said something to the effect of:
When looking at the results, it was obvious that there was systemic cheating without even watching a single match.

[Dr. Keith]

The Freakanomics book had something on this. It had some interesting text on how you detect cheating, but more so proposed that by rewarding and punishing administrators and teachers on the results of standardized tests, you have created an incentive to cheat.

Exactly. Which is why I am glad that our local districts have not used test scores in any way that would create such an incentive.

Instead, they have used testing to highlight sub-populations that need more attention in certain subjects. In fact, testing is allowing the schools to get away from a cookie cutter, one size fits all, approach to teaching and asses where the standard format has fallen short. By focusing on those kids when their tests first show that they are slipping behind the school can catch them up and prevent the cascade effect of not grasping a particular concept.

Tests are a tool. Like any tool, there are good ones and bad ones. But more importantly, there good uses and bad uses. Using a student evaluation tool to evaluate teachers is a bad use of the tool. Not really a reflection on the tool itself.

[Muldur]

The problem is that standardized testing is the only objective way to determine conclusively what students have and have not learned.

[fuelair]

All of this would be really neat IFF a large majority of the students had the intellectual capability to handle the types of things tested. This requires the ability to remember and be able to apply techniques/methods - often in fields they were not used in per teaching requirements as set up by the specific state - which many do not have. It requires the ability to manipulate data, organize data, analyze data which many students do not have. Teachers/school systems can overcome these and other such to an extent that is exactly correspondant to the teacher to student time available, the interest (positive) of the parent, the availability of specialists in language arts/math/ESOL/ESE to work with the students with problems in any one or more of these areas and the ability and willingness of the student to take advantage of this help. Which, of course requires money that most school systems never had - much less have now.

Fortunately I will be out of teaching just after the feces truly hits the fan here in FL (my estimate is 2014) when we will start the big teacher loss due to the teacher's choice because of the debilitating effects of the new test plans just started and expanding on over the next 4-5 years.

Will be interesting to watch. :):):)

[paiute]

The Freakanomics book had something on this. It had some interesting text on how you detect cheating, but more so proposed that by rewarding and punishing administrators and teachers on the results of standardized tests, you have created an incentive to cheat.

This was inevitable, given the First Law of Metridynamics: The observed metric will improve.

[Complexity]

The problem is that standardized testing is the only objective way to determine conclusively what students have and have not learned.


Can't agree.

People who do well on standardized tests tend to do well on standardized tests. Some people test well; others do not.

Doing well on a really well designed standardized test (e.g. one that has enough choices, choices that are all plausible, choices that represent common errors) can indicate knowledge of the material.

Doing poorly on a really well designed standardized test may be the result of a lack of familiarity with the question/answer styles, test anxiety, OCD, distractability, or a host of other conditions that can interfer with test taking.

It is easy for cheating to occur in many standardized testing situations.

Standardized testing can only test limited aspects of a person's knowledge and competencies.

[MattusMaximus]

The Freakanomics book had something on this. It had some interesting text on how you detect cheating, but more so proposed that by rewarding and punishing administrators and teachers on the results of standardized tests, you have created an incentive to cheat.

This ^

I teach in a highly competitive school district, and I have seen many instances of cheating among individual students (and groups of students) over the years. I see no reason to believe that adults under similar high-pressure situations, as that outlined in the OP, would behave any differently.

Sad, but true :(

The thing that burns my ass is the inevitable bashing that public-education haters are going to deliver on this news. They will use this as just another excuse to claim that public education, teachers, unions, yadda yadda are worthless. And they will further argue that "it'll all just get better" if we push private school vouchers, etc.

Of course, they neglect to mention that the private sector doesn't have a much better track record on cheating and honesty. Remember Enron, and what about the current scandal with Rubert Murdoch's News Corp?

[MattusMaximus]

The problem is that standardized testing is the only objective way to determine conclusively what students have and have not learned.

Wrong.

Ever heard of a lab practicum?

[Dr. Keith]

The thing that burns my ass is the inevitable bashing that public-education haters are going to deliver on this news. They will use this as just another excuse to claim that public education, teachers, unions, yadda yadda are worthless. And they will further argue that "it'll all just get better" if we push private school vouchers, etc.

Of course, they neglect to mention that the private sector doesn't have a much better track record on cheating and honesty. Remember Enron, and what about the current scandal with Rubert Murdoch's News Corp?

This ^

And really, it is easy to list all the problems with testing, now where are the solutions? How else can you measure the progress of millions of diverse individuals and create some meaningful data that will help identify successes and failures in such a complex system? What is the alternative? No accountability, that is the alternative.

PS: Private schools in our area will not take the same tests as the public schools. I think it is primarily out of fear that they won't compare well when adjustments are made for socio-economic differences.

[Dr. Keith]

Wrong.

Ever heard of a lab practicum?

I agree for most purposes, but can you imagine the variance of testing conditions that would exist in a nationwide lab practicum administered by teachers who are being judged based on the results of said practicum?

For nationwide comparative purposes the lab practicum falls a bit short.

[fuelair]

Can't agree.

People who do well on standardized tests tend to do well on standardized tests. Some people test well; others do not.

Doing well on a really well designed standardized test (e.g. one that has enough choices, choices that are all plausible, choices that represent common errors) can indicate knowledge of the material.

Doing poorly on a really well designed standardized test may be the result of a lack of familiarity with the question/answer styles, test anxiety, OCD, distractability, or a host of other conditions that can interfer with test taking.

It is easy for cheating to occur in many standardized testing situations.

Standardized testing can only test limited aspects of a person's knowledge and competencies.

This!!: I test VERY well on standardized multiple choice tests (words, numbers, symbols figure arrangements, patterns... makes no difference). Most students tend not to - most people tend not to (simplest way to cover is unless the MC is on a subject with specialized form and language I have not been taught or in a foreign language I score in the 90-100% range equivalent for that test) like my students. That's why I hate having to give them that type of test - though for most of those I have had in the last 12 years if we have questions that need more than five words to answer many do not bother ...can't win.

By the by, for the further interested, each year when we are introducing ourselves to each other at the beginning of the year I use this to point out a large misunderstanding people seem to often have on this: I tell them I made a 98 out of 100 (I am simplifying percentiles - but you knew that already)on the NTE (back in the early 80s) (this is, of course, true). Then I ask "So, does that make me really smart?" Usually general agreement. "So," ask I, "am I probably smarter than anyone else in this school?" Usually general agreement.
"OK," says I, "How many people are in this school?" We go through the numbers and get the actual approximate figure. I then ask how many hundred people do we have. Usually around 22 00. I then point out that I am at 98, so I am 3rd smartest of 100, but there are 2200 so there are at least 44 people smarter than me just at this school and as many as 65) - and that's just at our school - so, (I tell them) I do not want to hear anyone saying they can't do this - that I know it because I am smart but you aren't. I know it because I went to school and eventually learned it and if I can, you can........ (Then I explain the only effective way to cheat and explain it with the EM story and How Not to Try to Write a Paper and explain it with the DD story.)

I do love teaching - wish I could do more of it!!!

[fuelair]

This ^

And really, it is easy to list all the problems with testing, now where are the solutions? How else can you measure the progress of millions of diverse individuals and create some meaningful data that will help identify successes and failures in such a complex system? What is the alternative? No accountability, that is the alternative.

PS: Private schools in our area will not take the same tests as the public schools. I think it is primarily out of fear that they won't compare well when adjustments are made for socio-economic differences. No!!! Say it ain't so!!!!:D:D:D:D:jaw-dropp

[MattusMaximus]

Tests are a tool. Like any tool, there are good ones and bad ones. But more importantly, there good uses and bad uses. Using a student evaluation tool to evaluate teachers is a bad use of the tool. Not really a reflection on the tool itself.

Well said.

[MattusMaximus]

PS: Private schools in our area will not take the same tests as the public schools. I think it is primarily out of fear that they won't compare well when adjustments are made for socio-economic differences.

This is one of the things which pisses me off about the "privatize schools" movement, specifically the voucher movement: they want to get their hands on public tax dollars, but they don't want to be held accountable worth a damn. Talk about wanting to have it both ways :rolleyes:

[Garrette]

This!!: I test VERY well on standardized multiple choice tests (words, numbers, symbols figure arrangements, patterns... makes no difference). Most students tend not to - most people tend not to (simplest way to cover is unless the MC is on a subject with specialized form and language I have not been taught or in a foreign language I score in the 90-100% range equivalent for that test) like my students. That's why I hate having to give them that type of test - though for most of those I have had in the last 12 years if we have questions that need more than five words to answer many do not bother ...can't win.

By the by, for the further interested, each year when we are introducing ourselves to each other at the beginning of the year I use this to point out a large misunderstanding people seem to often have on this: I tell them I made a 98 out of 100 (I am simplifying percentiles - but you knew that already)on the NTE (back in the early 80s) (this is, of course, true). Then I ask "So, does that make me really smart?" Usually general agreement. "So," ask I, "am I probably smarter than anyone else in this school?" Usually general agreement.
"OK," says I, "How many people are in this school?" We go through the numbers and get the actual approximate figure. I then ask how many hundred people do we have. Usually around 22 00. I then point out that I am at 98, so I am 3rd smartest of 100, but there are 2200 so there are at least 44 people smarter than me just at this school and as many as 65) - and that's just at our school - so, (I tell them) I do not want to hear anyone saying they can't do this - that I know it because I am smart but you aren't. I know it because I went to school and eventually learned it and if I can, you can........ (Then I explain the only effective way to cheat and explain it with the EM story and How Not to Try to Write a Paper and explain it with the DD story.)

I do love teaching - wish I could do more of it!!!What are the EM and DD stories?

[fuelair]

What are the EM and DD stories?

The EM (initials for the girl) is wherein 5 of us boys cheated off of a girl on 7th grade math exam - she cooperated. On a division problem, I worked it on my own, noticed she had it wrong and let her know - carefully. She - operating on the "who is cheating off of who" theory did not do so, nor did the other four boys. I made a B, the rest, including EM made Cs and looked like they were copying me and missed one. Lesson A) don't cheat. Lesson B: but, if you do, make sure the person you are cheating off of really is better than you on evrything.

The DD story is a 9th grade student I had. They were assigned to choose an animal and do a media center research paper (short) on that animal. DD's paper was turned in neatly tied in a purple string on notebook paper and with a lovely drawing in pencil of an earthworm. It was titled "Worms". (I am now leaving out fun details involving other teachers and a guidance councilor who said he was pretty sure she did copy it directly from an encyclopedia with no other thoughts on it.). First line of the report:
WORMS
An industrial city located on located on the Rhine river in Germany.


after a page and a half describing this, she went to the specific topic clearly meant to be "what worms eat" as it went on:

The Diet of Worms


This moral tale teaches: check your topic, check your source, do not plagiarize, know what the words you are writing down actually say AND DO NOT JUST COPY STUFF.

They laugh, but then they forget............................

[Muldur]

Can't agree.

People who do well on standardized tests tend to do well on standardized tests. Some people test well; others do not.

Doing well on a really well designed standardized test (e.g. one that has enough choices, choices that are all plausible, choices that represent common errors) can indicate knowledge of the material.

Doing poorly on a really well designed standardized test may be the result of a lack of familiarity with the question/answer styles, test anxiety, OCD, distractability, or a host of other conditions that can interfer with test taking.

It is easy for cheating to occur in many standardized testing situations.

Standardized testing can only test limited aspects of a person's knowledge and competencies.

Either you know the material or you don't. Rigorous testing is the only way to determine this.

There is no dispute about that fact, as it is self-evident.

[Muldur]

Wrong.

Ever heard of a lab practicum?

Appropriate in some settings (Chemistry, Biology, etc).

The point is still the same: checking to see that the student has assimilated the required body of information for the topic in an objective manner.

The only people who don't like this are the Educrats in the teachers' unions who don't want people to look at the class rolls and be able to quickly and fairly determine whether or not Ms Carruthers (the most popular teacher in the school with the kids, and who holds all the right political positions with the union) can actually impart knowledge of her topic to the class.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Tests are a tool. Like any tool, there are good ones and bad ones. But more importantly, there good uses and bad uses. Using a student evaluation tool to evaluate teachers is a bad use of the tool. Not really a reflection on the tool itself.



Well said.

Utter nonsense.

Scoring teachers based on student proficiency is the ONLY objective way to rate teacher performance.

Do the kids know the prescribed body of information or don't they?

Only the teachers' unions fight this, because they don't want bad teachers held to account.

[Puppycow]

This scandal reminds me of a thread I started (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=205733) about Michelle Rhee a few months ago.

I'm not surprised to see more examples of this cropping up. http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=1705

OTOH, I'm not too happy with the teacher's union's position that seniority is everything and no teacher with seniority should ever be let go, no matter how bad their kids do.

[Puppycow]

Utter nonsense.

Scoring teachers based on student proficiency is the ONLY objective way to rate teacher performance.

Do the kids know the prescribed body of information or don't they?

Only the teachers' unions fight this, because they don't want bad teachers held to account.

When you say that student proficiency is an objective measure of teacher performance, do you think that adjustments should be made for student demographics? IOW, does it matter if it's a class of mostly white and Asian suburban middle class students or a class of mostly black and Latino inner-city students?

[pgwenthold]

The EM (initials for the girl) is wherein 5 of us boys cheated off of a girl on 7th grade math exam - she cooperated. On a division problem, I worked it on my own, noticed she had it wrong and let her know - carefully. She - operating on the "who is cheating off of who" theory did not do so, nor did the other four boys. I made a B, the rest, including EM made Cs and looked like they were copying me and missed one. Lesson A) don't cheat. Lesson B: but, if you do, make sure the person you are cheating off of really is better than you on evrything. .

The easiest way to detect cheating on problem sets is when the students make the same simple math error. I've seen students hand in problems where they set up the problem correctly, and then make a mistake putting the numbers in their calculator, getting the wrong answer. Then, the student that copies from them has the exact same answer, including the exact same typo.

Cheating is a lot easier to detect when students get the answer wrong. It's harder to prove cheating when they get the right answer, or when they make a common mistake. But when you see bizarre wrong answers, and then come across the same answer again from their friend, it's pretty obvious.

[Chaos]

The DD story is a 9th grade student I had. They were assigned to choose an animal and do a media center research paper (short) on that animal. DD's paper was turned in neatly tied in a purple string on notebook paper and with a lovely drawing in pencil of an earthworm. It was titled "Worms". (I am now leaving out fun details involving other teachers and a guidance councilor who said he was pretty sure she did copy it directly from an encyclopedia with no other thoughts on it.). First line of the report:
WORMS
An industrial city located on located on the Rhine river in Germany.


after a page and a half describing this, she went to the specific topic clearly meant to be "what worms eat" as it went on:

The Diet of Worms



As Phil Plait would put it... THE STUPID, IT BURNS!

[Alt+F4]

Do the kids know the prescribed body of information or don't they?

How often do they come to school? Do some research on the effects of absenteism, transisence, poverty and limited English ability on education before you spout such utter nonsense.

[Checkmite]

My issues with testing are myriad but I think it boils down to the fact that everyone was looking for a silver bullet, one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter solution to some schools (and students) not doing so well.

I disagree.

I think the idea behind the creation of the standardized tests, and an idea I there's nothing wrong with in my opinion, was that at each grade level, there's a certain set of skills that students should have learned at the very least. They can go beyond, of course; but every second grader at the very least should know how to add and subtract single digit numbers and be able to recite the entire alphabet (by way of example, realistic or not). Increase these "very least" requirements as the grade gets higher. I would say that a second grader who doesn't know the alphabet needs some immediate and focused attention, wouldn't you?

So if you've got a school which consistently passes large numbers of kids to the second grade who do not know the alphabet, I would say there's some kind of problem there that needs to be worked on. If "teaching the test" means that school starts focusing on making it so that every second grader does in fact know the alphabet by the time they take the test, I would say "teaching the test" is perfectly fine.

Problems:

1. There seems to be a culture in America where teachers are immune from criticism; like veterans, they're supposed to be honored all the time. A teacher's "love/passion for teaching" is considered sufficient justification for keeping them in the classroom never mind how many illiterate students they pass on. So when the minimum tests suggest faulty methodology in the classroom, the teachers insist that the test is poorly administered, and the public is more likely to believe them over the state.

2. Given the opportunity to relax standards, most schools have proven ready and willing to dumb down their programs to the point that those "at the very least" requirements are all that actually get taught. So rather than the median of the bell curve being well ahead of the state's minimum requirements and the minimum skills test catching and bringing teachers' attention to the struggling few, the median now straddles the minimum requirements line and fully half the students are now below minimum standards.

3. From the school's standpoint, cutting accelerated and G/T programs becomes a good idea because students consistently scoring well above median deforms the bell so that most of the school's students are below average, making the school look bad.

[Alt+F4]

There seems to be a culture in America where teachers are immune from criticism; like veterans, they're supposed to be honored all the time.

Are you kidding? Are you totally unaware of all the teacher bashing the past year?

[Checkmite]

You mean those three or four incidents that were such rare occurrences that they became national news? Yes.

[AlBell]

How often do they come to school? Do some research on the effects of absenteism, transisence, poverty and limited English ability on education before you spout such utter nonsense.
Well, yes, you understand the problem.

What is the solution? Sixth grade level is sixth grade level. How many 20 year olds do you want in a class before they're deemed 'unteachable'? And then what?

[PGH]

This may just be the start. After this story broke they are now carefully looking at schools in my area and they listed dozens as being suspected of academic cheating.

It would make sense that this Atlanta school wouldn't be the only case of such a thing going on. Now I guess we'll find out just how wide spread it is.

[AlBell]

Given a classroom of unteachables -- welcome to many Altlanta and inner city schools -- what should be done?

[Cleon]

This may just be the start. After this story broke they are now carefully looking at schools in my area and they listed dozens as being suspected of academic cheating.

It would make sense that this Atlanta school wouldn't be the only case of such a thing going on. Now I guess we'll find out just how wide spread it is.

I think you misunderstand - it isn't just one school, this has been going on all across Atlanta Public Schools.

[PGH]

I think you misunderstand - it isn't just one school, this has been going on all across Atlanta Public Schools.

I see. I really hadn't paid much attention since it was so far outside of the schools near me. But now it looks like schools in my area may have an even larger scandal on their hands, as Pittsburgh Public Schools are just one in a long list of districts they're looking at.

Here's the story. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/education/s_746379.html)

35 entire districts and 10 charter schools have been flagged.

"The report doesn't detail Pittsburgh Public Schools' irregularity, but spokeswoman Ebony Pugh said the state told the district that Sterrett Classical Academy in Point Breeze showed a 27 percent jump in participation by economically disadvantaged students."

"In March 2005, a teacher from Uniontown surrendered her certification to avoid disciplinary action after district officials accused her of providing answers for the reading section of the previous year's PSSA."

And this:

"Cynthia Chelen, superintendent in the Monessen School District, attributed Monessen Elementary School's irregularities to the fickle minds of young children.

"If you ever watched an elementary student, sometimes they change their answers three or four times," she said."

sets off every skeptical alarm in my head.

[Dr. Keith]

I do love teaching - wish I could do more of it!!!

That certainly helps.

[themusicteacher]

Utter nonsense.

Scoring teachers based on student proficiency is the ONLY objective way to rate teacher performance.

Do the kids know the prescribed body of information or don't they?

Only the teachers' unions fight this, because they don't want bad teachers held to account.

At what level does a student come into the classroom. If they can't do the things they should have been able to do in the prior grades, how can I catch them up? In many states, the parent, not the school, gets to decide if a child is passed on or not through the elementary (K-6 grades). How is that fair to the teacher?. The situation is far more complex than anyone of your ilk is willing to admit or even fathom. The question isn't whether or not the students are learning the material, it's whether or not the teacher is teaching the material. If the student isn't learning, it very well may be their own fault (or that of a learning disability, for example). What the layperson fails to understand or appreciate is that teaching and learning are not necessarily connected.

I can teach a student new techniques and effective methods of practice, give them access to resources, work with them one-on-one, help them create a practice routine, etc. but if they don't do the work, how is that my fault? How do you determine who is at fault on a case-by-case basis? I'm willing to bet most people aren't willing to commit the resources necessary to implement a review process that is that in-depth. To tie a teachers job or pay to a single standardized test is folly and illogical. Without an in-depth review of each failing student, it is utterly unethical to say, unequivocally, "That is a teacher that failed to do their job."

[Dr. Keith]

Scoring teachers based on student proficiency is the ONLY objective way to rate teacher performance.

No, you will find that often when you use the word "only" you are wrong. I agree that an objective evaluation of a teacher may include testing information, but should not be solely based on that limited factor. Do we really want teachers to only be concerned with the test scores? (See the OP before you answer this one.)

Only the teachers' unions fight this, because they don't want bad teachers held to account.

This is so nice to hear repeated as fact. It is so warm and fuzzy, like an old blanket. Let's never let it go. Hmmm.

Now, maybe you could find a room full of principals and ask them a few questions. Like: Have you ever fired a bad teacher? How did you know the teacher was bad? Was it hard to fire a teacher you felt was not doing a good job of teaching? How many bad teachers are currently teaching in your school?

Consider how their answers compare with those of a manager at your local bank, hardware store, hospital or restaurant. There are bad employees in all of these and all of these have found ways to weed them out and replace them. Why do you assume school can't do the same?

In the districts where I live and work bad teachers quickly become former teachers. It is a good job with good benefits and there are plenty of qualified people who would like to be teachers. Now, if we reduce salaries and cut benefits, that will likely change, but for now there is enough of a market attraction that many good teachers can't get jobs and bad teachers don't last long.

Personally, I'd like to see teachers paid more as I think it would attract even better candidates to the field, but that's just me. I have to admit that we have a pretty good group in there right now, so if we just don't screw them we should do fine.

[themusicteacher]

I disagree.

I think the idea behind the creation of the standardized tests, and an idea I there's nothing wrong with in my opinion, was that at each grade level, there's a certain set of skills that students should have learned at the very least. They can go beyond, of course; but every second grader at the very least should know how to add and subtract single digit numbers and be able to recite the entire alphabet (by way of example, realistic or not). Increase these "very least" requirements as the grade gets higher. I would say that a second grader who doesn't know the alphabet needs some immediate and focused attention, wouldn't you?

So if you've got a school which consistently passes large numbers of kids to the second grade who do not know the alphabet, I would say there's some kind of problem there that needs to be worked on. If "teaching the test" means that school starts focusing on making it so that every second grader does in fact know the alphabet by the time they take the test, I would say "teaching the test" is perfectly fine.

Problems:

1. There seems to be a culture in America where teachers are immune from criticism; like veterans, they're supposed to be honored all the time. A teacher's "love/passion for teaching" is considered sufficient justification for keeping them in the classroom never mind how many illiterate students they pass on. So when the minimum tests suggest faulty methodology in the classroom, the teachers insist that the test is poorly administered, and the public is more likely to believe them over the state.

2. Given the opportunity to relax standards, most schools have proven ready and willing to dumb down their programs to the point that those "at the very least" requirements are all that actually get taught. So rather than the median of the bell curve being well ahead of the state's minimum requirements and the minimum skills test catching and bringing teachers' attention to the struggling few, the median now straddles the minimum requirements line and fully half the students are now below minimum standards.

3. From the school's standpoint, cutting accelerated and G/T programs becomes a good idea because students consistently scoring well above median deforms the bell so that most of the school's students are below average, making the school look bad.

Wow, that's a lot of thoughtless BS to cut through.

The problem isn't taking on criticism, it's the fact that nobody, nobody, want to commit the resources to a good education system for everyone. They will gladly heap the blame on teachers without thinking critically about the issues, be accountable themselves or ask tough questions about what tests mean and how they are used. Rather, they see them as the end-all-be-all of education. The fact is that our educational system and testing regimen is nothing like the educational systems and testing regimens in the nations we are constantly compared to. The results and comparisons are meaningless in light of this.

Tests are easy, hands-off, not-my-responsibility cop-outs used by politicians and "reformers" who couldn't give two craps about education. Criticize me all you want but criticize me for the work I do not the work my students do. When my students do well it's because they took the things I taught them and worked not because I have some magical ability. Will my students do better if I do good work? Sure. Is that guaranteed? Not in the least. My effectiveness is based of a hell of a lot more than just what I do and I will not have my abilities as a teacher reduced to one performance.

If you want to say that teachers are trying to protect themselves, can you blame them? They've been vilified, marginalized as professionals, called all sorts of names, second-guessed, underpaid and left twisting in the wind. Has anyone come their aid that could actually do something? Hell no. When asked the question "What's wrong with schools" the answer is always "It's those stupid teachers not doing their jobs and the unions that protect them." Really, that's the only significant problem? That's all you can see being an issue? If that's the case then you're beyond reasonable discussion.

[Chaos]

But, assuming teacher A´s students are comparable to teacher B´s students (i.e. just as lazy or motivated, just as smart or dumb etc), which they ought to be within the same year at the same school, if A´s students score better than B´s students, wouldn´t that mean A is better than B?

[Dr. Keith]

But, assuming teacher A´s students are comparable to teacher B´s students (i.e. just as lazy or motivated, just as smart or dumb etc), which they ought to be within the same year at the same school, if A´s students score better than B´s students, wouldn´t that mean A is better than B?

Not at any school I've ever been to. Classes tend to be divided by ability to some degree. Do you really want to teach the same way to a class of kids who easily grasp algebra as you do to a class that has a hard time with the word algebra? No, so you divide out the kids based on ability and teach according to their level.

But even then, if you take two classes with similar test scores at the beginning of the year you still have problems. What if one class has to keep changing rooms because the school has heater problems, so every day they spend five minutes extra getting to the right room and settling in for the day. That's around 10% of the teacher's instruction time eaten up by poor facilities. And what if one school has more frequent interruptions for police searching lockers and pulling kids out for questioning in criminal investigations. Or locking down the school for false bomb scares, or real gun possession on campus. Or if they walk in on test day to a bunch of kids who thought "wake and bake" was a good idea for the blow-off test that doesn't affect them.

The point is that a teacher has about 50 minutes a day with the student and that time may easily be decreased by outside influences and the quality of instruction during that time may well be outside of the teacher's control. And then you test that "performance" on one day that the teacher has little control over.

So, yeah, they get a bit pissy when you try to say they aren't doing their job because the test scores aren't working out.