education policy analysis archives
Email this article Cheating in the first, second, and third degree: Educators' responses to high-stakes testing
Abstract
Educators are under tremendous pressure to ensure that their students perform well on tests. Unfortunately, this pressure has caused some educators to cheat. The purpose of this study was to investigate the types of, and degrees to which, a sample of teachers in Arizona were aware of, or had themselves engaged in test-related cheating practices as a function of the high-stakes testing policies of No Child Left Behind. A near census sample of teachers was surveyed, with valid responses obtained from about 5 percent, totaling just over 3,000 teachers. In addition, one small convenience sample of teachers was interviewed, and another participated in a focus group. Data revealed that cheating occurs and that educators can be quite clever when doing so. But how one defines cheating makes it difficult to quantify the frequency with which educators engage in such practices. Our analysis thus required us to think about a taxonomy of cheating based on the definitions of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree offenses in the field of law. These categories were analyzed to help educators better define, and be more aware of others' and their own cheating practices, in an attempt to inform local testing policies and procedures.
Refbacks
- » http://classroom.phoenix.edu/afm212/secure/view-message.jspa?messageID=83302512
- » http://languagetesting.info/journals/appling/allist.php
- » http://languagetesting.info/journals/latest/updates.php
2 Responses to “Cheating in the first, second, and third degree: Educators' responses to high-stakes testing”
Leave a Reply
This article has been viewed: 5490 times since June 29, 2010
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Contact EPAA//AAPE at
This article comes at an important time, just when the Department of Education is entertaining proposals for a new Comprehensive Assessment System. The Department’s specifications for the proposals are entirely silent with regard to the tension created by having an accountability system operated by those that are to be held accountable by it. Beardsley, Berliner, and Rideau seem to hold the use of tests for accountability as the root problem, rather than consider the role of the people who operate the assessment system and benefit from its manipulation. The focus on teachers is necessary, but insufficient. I would suggest a look at the administrators and politicians at the top. Look, for instance, at the set of written test administration directions provided by each state and then consider the informal, unwritten directions that accompany them. You will find extensive, written, directions on how to maintain the security of the test materials. You will also find extensive, unwritten, directions for teachers to guide students to make an answer for every test question. “If it’s blank, it’s wrong.” This practice requires teachers to become involved with their students’ test work behavior. What should and should not be allowed in this involvement? No state provides such specifics. Teachers are left to fend for themselves and take the heat when whatever they do becomes public.
The pairing of degrees of murder with degrees of cheating is a novel ideal, but it’s misguided. The currently legislated mandates involving standardized tests impose untenable inhumane moral and professional burdens on teachers. It is more reasonable and just to establish three degrees of “Test-Inflicted Student and Teacher Abuse:
Third degree abuse: Defining “proficiency in terms of arbitrarily-set cut scores on ungrounded statistical scales.
Second degree abuse: Imposing a statistically impossible formula that schools must meet to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” to avoid NCLB-legislated sanctions.
First degree abuse: Evaluating teachers on the basis of student performance on standardized tests, which are sensitive to differences in student socioeconomic status but not to differences in the instruction that has been provided.
When are we going to stop inflicting abusive testing practices on our kids and teachers? Where is “accountability” when we really need it?