Back in the Bush era, Washington imposed standardized tests as a measure of success in public education. The Obama administration, presumably enthralled by the mystique of assessment (and the influence of the folks selling the tests), continued this policy.
Shortly after standardized tests became the major focus of education, I heard rumors of cheating through the educational grapevine. Unlike the usual sort of cheating, this was allegedly being done by teachers and school administrators. I did acquire some confirmation regarding the rumors and heard that some people were punished for their misdeeds.
Given this background information, I was not at all surprise when it was revealed that the Atlanta Public School system has allegedly been a hotbed of cheating. I do admit that the extent of the alleged cheating was a minor shock: 44 out of the 56 schools investigated were accused of harboring cheaters, 38 principles were accused, 178 teachers took the Fifth and 82 confessed to cheating on the tests (typically by replacing erroneous answers with the right ones). The cheating seems to have been systematic in nature, rather than just the work of a few bad apples.
Such dishonesty cannot be condoned, especially when it involves educators. We are supposed to teach and enforce principles of academic integrity and ethics. As such, for us to break them is a double offense. That said, I do understand why teachers and administrators would resort to cheating.
First, these standardized tests were imposed on the schools rather than being developed internally as an effective education tool. People generally react poorly to such impositions and are often naturally inclined to resist them (just ask the Tea Party folks). Second, the state made the test results very important and linked them to such things as raises and funding. While this did cause teachers to switch from actually teaching to engaging in test preparation, it would also motivate people to cheat-especially given the fact that these standardized tests are of somewhat dubious merit in terms of assessing student ability and teacher effectiveness. Third, while the state imposed on the schools, little (or nothing) was done to provide more funding and support for education. In fact, many states have been busily cutting into teacher’s benefits and salaries while often linking job security to the test results. This has proven to be a recipe for disaster. Fourth, many educators (myself included) have serious and well founded doubts about the effectiveness and merits of the standardized tests that have become an obsession of the state. When people believe that something is bureaucratic bullshit, they tend to try to subvert it and get around it.
It should be noted that I am not justifying the cheaters’ actions, but providing an explanation as to why they might have believed it was acceptable to cheat. To accuse me of justifying these actions would be to fall victim to the fallacy of confusing an explanation with an excuse.
Those engaged in the cheating should, of course, face the consequences of their actions. As educators, they are expected to act with integrity and honesty. However, this situation should also be taken as indicating that standardized testing in public schools needs to be reassessed. Unfortunately, the companies that sell the tests have a rather strong lobby, hence I suspect that nothing will be done to address this blight on education and hence the problems will continue.
I know I sound like Cassandra, but the Federal Government has no business sticking its nose into K-12 education. This is a recipe for mediocrity.
We must resist the urge to Federalize everything.
I’m fine with there being a nationally set of minimal standards (the kids have to be able to read, write and do math), but the recent approach of simply imposing directives onto schools has been problematic. Of course, given the profit motivation behind it (those tests are not free, for example) this is to be expected.
But why does this have to be a *Federal* set of standards?
The heavy, leaden, dead (choose your own adjective) hand of the Federal government is anathema to any kind of educational excellence…
The implication of “The heavy, leaden, dead (choose your own adjective) hand of the Federal government . . .” seems to imply that the Federal government is generally, “heavy, leaden, dead”. . .counter-productive, unnecessary..
I disagree. The mere existence and success of the US Constitution would seem to provide incontrovertible proof that the federal government is “necessary”. (choose your own adjective) And some very important federal responsibilities are “necessary and proper” to “the progress of science and the useful arts.”
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
“The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems.” If States were doing a good job at that point, why couldn’t they collect their own information?
The entire article is interesting. For a relatively small annual financial input, the Department of Education , has, in its various forms, provided important financial assistance to states and local districts and colleges and universities.
The DOE has continued to provide info to the states about what is and isn’t effective in education.
I don’t believe the government is stifling educational quality in the US. I believe the federal, state ,and local governments are, after 140+ years of fed+state efforts, losing ground to social forces they/ we don’t fully comprehend or agree on. Feds and locals are flailing around for answers and NCLB happens to be one of them. A temporary one we can only hope.
If as much money had been spent over the years for educational research and social research related to the educational process as has been spent on needless wars and bipartisan porkbarrel perhaps a better answer would have surfaced by now.
“The DOE has continued to provide info to the states about what is and isn’t effective in education.”
I don’t have a problem with this.
“I don’t believe the government is stifling educational quality in the US.”
Here we part ways. Why do you think the kids of politicians go to Sidwell Friends?
Don’t know the details of Federal spending on education per se, but so long as the Federal govt is spending money on primary and secondary school education, it should require standards. I would be fine with it if states could choose to opt out of Federal funding and thus could opt out of the requirements. I’d be even more pleased if the Dpt. of Ed. were to be abolished. At a minimum it’s functions could be reduced to a reasonable number that could then be absorbed by HHS.
There should be a national set of basic standards. Whether this needs to be done by the feds is something that could be debated. A risk of not making it federal is that the states could just do whatever, which could be very bad (“hey kids, lets learn about how Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs!” or “hey kids, lets all be Marxists!”). The risk of making them federal is that this opens the door to profiteering on a national scale (rather than on just the local level).
Mike,
Why is that not a danger at a national level? Why couldn’t the feds demand teaching about Adam and Eve riding dinos?
Seems like state government has more to gain from fixing problems than does far away Washington. States are perfectly capable of passing and enforcing their own laws. I don’t think the oligarchs in Washington need any more say in how small-town USA is run.
You’ve identified many of the problems identified by some to be related specifically to federal involvement in education, particularly in the area of standardized testing: cheating, poorly conceived and executed use of tests as evaluations tools for schools, teachers, and the great damage done to the very concept of education by the use of standardized tests to judge true educational growth (whatever that may be) . .
On the other hand we must realize that the whole standardized testing approach under NCLB was a result in part of what was perceived by some to be a failure of state and local educational institutions.
As horrific as the current situation is, it is not difficult to imagine a country in which each individual district managed its own educational fiefdom.– where let’s say 15% of the parents in a district would need to take the district to court to eliminate or change what they perceive to be the improper political or religious focus of the curriculum. Or in which each state defined its individual standards, and redefined the religious and or political color of their educational system each time the governor’s office changed hands or the state legislature changed its colors. Parents could go to the courts, try going to the polls, leave the state to seek a better educational climate, Or seek refuge for their kids in cyberschools or costly private schools.
There’s a legitimate role for the federal involvement in there somewhere. The question is whether we have the time, patience, or money to figure it out. I’m not too sanguine about that. Education is one of those many areas where the public constantly bemoans the need for improvement yet consistently puts other needs (like football programs, excessive administrative staffing, etc.) ahead of real education.
frk, would you agree with this analysis?
If people think they can make a difference, they will get involved. If people think they are powerless, they won’t get involved.
If you agree with that, can’t you see that empowering local government encourages an active, involved citizenry and that empowering the federal government encourages a passive citizenry?
Oops, I forgot that I CC Cleaned my cookies. That last was from T.J.
We agree (paragraph 2).
That makes two times, I believe.
Are we nearing the portal to an alternate universe?
Sorry. Mea culpa. This (10:04)was to be a reply from frk to magus71 @ 1:29am.
Maybe it’s because I just got back to Germany and can drink beer again. 🙂
I would assume that they would have some sort of goat or ferret based juice in Afghanistan. That should be as good as beer…
TJ–“If people think they can make a difference, they will get involved.”
I’m not so certain that the numbers of voters that show up at local election polls would bear that out. And I’m not certain what kind of “difference” we might be talking about here.
I’ll give you this: If money#* is the issue you’ll get increased participation. Even at the local level, that participation can be dominated by those with most wealth and power. The others are often working two jobs just to keep the family going, They find themselves short of time to keep up with anything but pocketbook issues, and they often have few channels by which to spread what opinions and power they do have.
“If people think they are powerless. . .”
I’m reasonably certain that the sense of powerlessness that overwhelms people can be attributed to more sources than the growth of the federal bureaucracy. It’s arguable that we are all part of several ever-growing entities (country, state, city or town) And I’ll continue to argue that, as the entity grows, the bureaucracy must grow with it..##** think the colonials felt more power being part of a country with 4 million citizens than you or I do being part of a country growing on past 300 million, nearly 20% of whom will be Latino in 2020. That’s 60 million out there .
And it’s also arguable that, when people feel powerless, they sometimes get “involved ” in ugly, ugly , non-productive ways
#*And as we know, money doesn’t equal quality in education, right? A three million dollar football stadium and an assistant principal or two on one hand or a more good teachers on the other. . .Which would I/you/the other guy argue for if we had time to go to a board meeting? Or march in a protest?
##**That’s not to say the bureaucracy cannot be significantly streamlined for the good of all. StilI, in the end, I want a bureaucracy (government, if you will) that will protect us from the predations of corporations that knowingly pollute our waters with toxins. I want a bureaucracy that protects the least educated among us from the predations of the wilier, slavering, hounds of Wall Street (see note below) We need a bureaucracy that protects us from predators of all types. . . As our population grows and our lives become more complex,,protecting ourselves from predators is not as simple as keeping a gun handy. Relative to the topic: Here’s where a true education comes in. Let’s give these future citizens the tools to protect themselves as much as possible in the 21st century environment.
Note: I”m deeply disappointed that our government as currently formed has failed to respond to the financial debacle with any meaningful legislation. That’s something a bureaucracy, properly shaped and controlled, is uniquely equipped to do.
On the brighter side, the bailout of the auto industry was a success in my opinion, and I have yet to see a sensible argument to prove otherwise (of course the proof would have to make guesses about what may have happened had the bailout not been instituted–and making a leap, the equivalent of which is assuming that ^not^ raising the debt ceiling is “ok” . A bureaucratic decision can work. How would individual states or localities have dealt with those auto industry problems.
I believe teachers are finding themselves at the forefront of a cultural issue that they have almost no ability to change. Our children are growing dumber with each generation; it’s not our teachers’ fault. Kids simply don’t care that much about school. But every cheating teacher must go; the last thing we need is any more bad actions without consequences.
If we are to turn things around ( I don’t see that happening in my lifetime), we’ll have to change things at home. Turn off American Idol and read a book. Start making education a part of a kid’s life when they’re very young. A kid should know all 50 states in the US by the time they’re 5–not 15. A child should be reading at a very young age. They should have a very solid foundation by the time they reach grade school, and most of that comes from home.
I’m thankful I didn’t grow up in the internet age because it would have doomed me just like it’s doomed this generation.
“Why do you think the kids of politicians go to Sidwell Friends?”
Why do you think my kids and the kids of many regular Americans don’t go to Sidwell Friends?
One reason that pops into my mind first: We can’t afford it ,and they can Does that seem possible? At $31-2 k/year. . . If my child’s public education cost me that much per year, I’d have reason to have high expectations for him even if he had an IQ of 93. I don’t know if Sidwell Friends would even accept him. The public school will. At Sidwell the teacher-student ratio is 11:1 in kindergarten. 13:1 in grade 12. Sidwell aims for diversity. . .while strongly emphasizing a student’s past academic background. The public schools most children go to have teacher-student ratios of 20+:1 or more. And they’re basically stuck with teaching anyone who comes through their doors. Your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, etc.
What do you think a public education (education for all) would cost if the quality of that education was brought up to the standards of the best private school education? I’m fine with the idea that every school child in America, from the deep rural Kentucky hollers to the mountains of West Virginia to the slums of D.C. and L.A. should have a top quality education.*#
But, if you read the link in provided in my 8:59am you would know that the federal government now provides nearly 11% of the cost of education in this country. The states and local governments on average provide the remaining 89%. It’s worth noting that it’s not uncommon to hear of local referendums for additional school spending rejected by the public.
An educated, well-trained ,dedicated teacher should not come cheap. The general public, on the whole, gets a bargain for its investment. The federal government spends only approx. 100 billion dollars a year on public education for all the public school pupils in the country. Less than the war in Iraq cost in each of the years ’06, ’07, and ’08. Less than the war in Afghanistan cost in ’10. . .and ’11. That’s not to say defense is unimportant. . . . .on the other hand, I’ve heard it said more than once (maybe even by magus) that the quality of the enlistees hain’t what it useter be.. .
*# The education of those kids from KY hollers etc. is funded 89% by the state and local entities. How far is their money going to reach compared to, say the 89% Massachusetts kicks in to per pupil spending. B
Oh. This 4:59 pm above is for TJ @ July 8, 2011 1:40pm
“What do you think a public education (education for all) would cost if the quality of that education was brought up to the standards of the best private school education?”
I don’t think the problem is money. I think the problem is that the joy of being a teacher has been snuffed out by an excessive number of rules and mandates so that few can stand being a teacher anymore.
Yearning for those good old days,, eh? When teachers got paid dirt and loved it because they loved teaching. . .And they got unqualified respect from the community because not only were they doing a job that few others in the community for do, but they seemed to glory in the role of the poor teacher who’d gladly learn and gladly teach and watch some of his/her least aot students graduate directly into jobs that paid much much more than the teacher’s pittance.
No, I’m pretty sure the problem, if we’re talking about Sidwell v the public schools ^is^ money. And it’s not just teachers’ salaries. It’s the quality of student the Sidwells in this country can attract and how much those their parents are willing and able to pay for what they perceive to be a fine education.
I addition, I think magus in his July 7, 1:29 am above expresses a much clearer understanding about the nature of the conditions that are snuffing out the joy in teaching.