By Tom
Let’s say you go out and buy a fish tank. An aquarium. You bring it home and get it all set up with gravel on the bottom, an air pump with a filter, some plastic plants and a lighted cover. You add the water and let it sit overnight, just like they told you, and then you go back to the pet store to buy some fish.
The guy at the store helps you select compatible species and explains the importance of regularly testing the water. “It has to be the right ph,” he says, “or the fish will get sick and die.” He sells you a test kit, along with some chemicals that you can use to make adjustments.
You know nothing about ph, except for the fact that it has to be just right, which for your particular fish is just slightly acidic: around 6.8.
You take seriously your role as steward of these creatures. They depend on you for survival. Besides that, they were expensive. So you diligently check the ph every three days and make adjustments as needed.
How would you go about this task? Would you employ “tricks” that you think might yield a perfect 6.8? Would you go on line to find out which part of the tank is most likely to perfect, and then use only that place to draw your test water? Would you test the tank just before the fish eat? Or just after, trying to find the time when the water was best?
Would you go so far as to buy a bottle of water that had a ph of 6.8 and use that for all your tests?
I’m guessing you wouldn’t do any of these things, and that you consider gaming your tests in an attempt to get a favorable result counter-productive. The whole point of testing the water is to see whether it’s safe for the fish or if it needs to be adjusted. You’re supposed to use the test results to that end. The results, in and of themselves matter only to the extent that they’re used to ensure that the water in the tank is healthy.
So what are we doing this spring, with standardized testing in full swing? Back in the day, tests were used as a systemic and individual check-point. We wanted accurate information so that we could see which programs, which schools and which students need to be looked at more closely. Objectivity was important. There was no “test-prep industry.” We were asked to test our class under normal conditions. We told them to skip the answers they didn’t know and do their best.
We tested our students in much the same way as any normal person would test the water in a fish tank.
Those days are well behind us. Most of you, like me, have received emails from your district administration, explaining ways in which you can enhance your students’ performance. You’ve had grade level meetings in which you’ve rearranged the math scope and sequence so that the kids get the tested stuff in a timely manner. You’ve received a few boxes of granola bars, donated by the PTA, earmarked for the “test-day nutrition break.” (If food is supposed to enhance performance, where were those snacks when the students were supposed to be learning?) Some of you have gone so far as to bring in gum, capitalizing on the myth that chewing gum increases concentration.
All of this stuff is perfectly harmless. It might be distracting, maybe a little unnecessary, but certainly not unethical.
But then there’s this. It appears that some of the schools in Washington D.C. flat-out cheated. It appears that someone went through student tests, erasing wrong answers and filing them in correctly. Coincidentally, at least one of these schools was the shining star in Michelle Rhee’s school reform campaign. In fact, the principal at that school received $10,000 because of those high test scores. The teachers got $8,000. And some of those people obviously cheated.
It’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t do it. So I’ll say it: I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t taint the results of a set of standardized tests even for $8,000. But you know something? $8,000 is a lot of money. Even for an over-paid public employee. And even though I wouldn’t do it (and you wouldn’t either, right?) it’s clear that someone would.
When we decided to focus on test results instead of education, we started ourselves down this path. This was bound to happen.
Tests are supposed to be used in the process of teaching. They were never supposed to be the product of teaching.
Some of us have forgotten that.
Some of us have never even known it.
Great line about the granola bars!
Kristin’s comment is also quite useful. I wish more people understood the dynamics involved in producing (or suppressing) publicly praiseworthy test results, and the invisibility of other results that matter more.
No, you can’t blame Michelle Rhee for the cheating. But you can blame her for creating a system where cheating was bound to happen.
Furthermore, the fact that she handed thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to people who posted test results that were as suspicious as they were unsustainable makes her either incredible incompetent (if she didn’t know what was going on) or horrible corrupt (if she did.)
But no, you can’t blame her for the cheating.
I guess I should add to my previous statement. Isn’t the high stakes nature of the testing creating an unnecessary compulsion for some to cheat? (especially in light of the preponderance of evidence showing these tests to be ineffective in evaluating individuals?)
“I think it’s important we keep trying to get a measurement system that helps teachers teach better, helps parents know where their child is, and helps districts identify weak spots.”
Isn’t that what grades and progress reports are for?
I don’t know if cheating at the building level can be blamed on Rhee. Just because a leader strongly encourages buildings to improve performance doesn’t mean she’s encouraging cheating.
That decision was made by whoever messed with the tests.
And I wouldn’t cheat, either, but I’ve taught with teachers who have. When the WASL was first piloted, my principal strongly encouraged us to improve performance. The community – the Sammamish Plateau – expected great scores and she wanted to deliver. In fact, the newspaper published scores next to teacher names and judgement was assigned accordingly. And one teacher cheated. He examined the booklets after school (this was before we had to turn them in at the end of the day), put post its next to things students needed to complete or fix, and had the students improve their work the next day.
He was praised for having high scores. My class was a place where students developed a love for reading, so the special ed department hand-placed their struggling readers with me. Guess what my scores were like? If you guessed “worst in the building,” you’d be right. And I was not praised.
So, yes. Some teachers will cheat. Some principals might even carefully encourage cheating, or look the other way, but I think they are the minority.
I should have outed that teacher. I was younger then, and had a confused sense of loyalty. Now I wouldn’t be so quiet.
And I still support testing. I think it’s important. I think it’s important we keep trying to get a measurement system that helps teachers teach better, helps parents know where their child is, and helps districts identify weak spots.
I read about similar discrepancies in the scoring of the New York Regents exams.
https://www.storiesfromschool.org/2011/02/how-about-those-regents-exams.html
Those tests were also handled by classroom teachers, sometimes even scored by them. There was a statistically suspicious number of scores just above the cut line. But at least in New York the teachers were trying to help the students get passing scores so they could graduate. In D.C. it looks like they were just trying to please Michelle Rhee and get a bonus.