Trouble With a Capital 'T' - education

School Administrator, Dec, 2000 by Glynn D. Ligon

Testing scandals, already common, will spread as a consequence of the pressure to raise students' scores

Scandalous behavior intrudes at times when educators manage standardized tests with serious consequences for themselves, their schools and their students.

As a former teacher and central-office administrator in a large school district, I appreciate the difficulties and pressures that tests impose. As educators, we have to acknowledge that we have not earned the nation's trust in our data. Positive report card grades and high scores on criterion-referenced tests are not convincing when compared against international test results that are unfavorable to U.S. students.

The scarcity of independent, comparable, objective outcome measures creates a need for standardized tests. The public and especially our elected officials grasp at statewide standardized tests because schools' own reports of success have been too positive, too subjective. Some educators resent the instructional time and priority demanded by statewide assessments. Some respond by cheating. So when cheating is exposed, should we end the testing or rid the system of the cheaters?

Permissive Views

Twenty-one years ago, I was assigned to manage Austin's testing program. (I did not volunteer or apply.) From day one, I noticed the lackadaisical attitudes, latitude and even unethical behavior that were evident in preparing students for tests. Keep in mind this was the late 1970s, and the California Achievement Tests being given in Austin were hardly high stakes by today's standards. In fact, the CATs were only administered in a few grade levels for needs assessment and as a pre- and post-test for Title I.

Still, there was cheating--by adults. Some cheating was committed "innocently" by naive teachers and counselors. Old tests with some current items were used for practice, test vocabulary was integrated into lessons, the timing of administrations was loose, weak students were advised to stay home and helpful hints were offered by proctors.

The tests did not matter very much to teachers and principals. In their view, the tests served some esoteric purpose, and the scores usually came back late and cold--and often to someone else.

Yet times were changing. I was one of a new generation of evaluators-a hybrid educator/researcher trained to use test results as outcome indicators. Cheating undermined the integrity of our one and only established outcome measure--the norm-referenced, standardized test.

Everyday Cheaters

I use the term cheat here to mean a broad category of actions that result in a false representation of a student's own or a school's average level of knowledge and skills. So a student can cheat while taking a test, an adult can cheat to "help" a student or an adult can cheat to misrepresent true results from a test.

Some people cheat on their income taxes because they believe the tax code is unfair. That is why we audit. Some people cheat on their credit applications because they believe they are now reliable regardless of their own credit history. That is why we check out their credit history. Some people cheat in sports because they are embarrassed to do poorly. That is why we have referees and umpires.

Some people cheat in competitions because they want to be considered the best. That is why we have reviews and investigations. Some people cheat on letters of recommendation because they want to help a friend. That is why we rely upon those letters so little. Some people cheat on traffic laws because they forget or do not know the rules. That is why so many signs are posted and cameras are mounted above a growing number of traffic signals.

Some people cheat on anything because they believe others are cheating and getting an unfair advantage. That is why a system has to be trusted by those affected.

We should not be surprised to know that adults cheat to raise test scores. We should not tolerate cheating either. We are not seriously considering eliminating tax collections, sports activities or credit applications because some people cheat. We cannot seriously consider eliminating assessments from schools because some adults cheat. Our best course is to build assessment systems with integrity. When the stakes are high, we must be even more vigilant.

Cheating Types

I have seen cheating by educators on tests. My own experience suggests that educators cheat to help students more frequently than they cheat to make themselves look good. The irony is that the students the teachers think they are helping by cheating are actually harmed in the end.

I've seen virtual nonreaders denied Title I services because they had a falsely high test score boosted by a teacher who changed wrong answers to correct answers on an answer sheet. I've seen a kindergarten program miss its goals because teachers prompted students to mark correct answers on a pretest, so no gains were measured on the post-test. I've seen students given test answers to study in advance so they could pass a test rather than repeat a remedial course that teaches the skills they need to pass other courses. I've seen schools where students are told to stay home on test days, resulting in no documentation of the learning needs of those students.