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.

Examining Potential Bias in Screening Measures for Middle School Students by Special Education and Low Socioeconomic Status Subgroups

“…Accurate administration and scoring of measures, as well as accurate recording of scores, is critical in gathering efficacious data. Researchers have observed high rates of improvisation during ORF administrations coupled with counting errors in scoring (Reed & Sturges, 2012), and there have been cases of irregularities in the administration of high-stakes state tests as well (e.g., Amrein-Beardsley, Berliner, & Rideau, 2010;Tanner, 2013).…”

Smart money? Philanthropic and federal funding for the Common Core

“…Yet, the National PTA's mission is "to make every child's potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and communities to advocate for all children" (National PTA, n.d.). The relationship of this mission to the Common Core is tenuous, since SBR does not typically raise achievement but often distorts teaching and learning (e.g., Beardsley, Berliner, & Rideau, 2010;Booher-Jennings, 2005;Davidson, Reback, Rockoff, & Schwartz, 2013;Koretz, 2008;McNeil, Coppola, Radigan, & Vasquez-Heilig, 2008;Neal & Schanzenbach, 2007).…”

“…While some studies of SBRs have been supportive (e.g., Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; see Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan, 2008), many others find SBR generates distortions in teaching, learning, and accountability (e.g., Beardsley, Berliner, & Rideau, 2010;Booher-Jennings, 2005;Davidson, Reback, Rockoff, & Schwartz, 2013;Koretz, 2008;McNeil, Coppola, Radigan, & Vasquez-Heilig, 2008;Neal & Schanzenbach, 2007). Policymakers' arguments that such reforms will improve achievement and reduce inequities are not well supported by research.…”

“…The dollars to support aligned assessments versus aligned curriculum, instruction, and professional development underscore the centrality of the technical-rational nostrums (e.g., metrics, big data, measurable growth) valued by the philanthropic and federal champions of this reform. Investments in testing and accountability systems are also promising approaches to social control under RDT, since such systems are known to influence school and districts (e.g., Beardsley, Berliner, & Rideau, 2010;Booher-Jennings, 2005;Koretz, 2008;McNeil, Coppola, Radigan, & Vasquez-Heilig, 2008).…”

Red Beads and Profound Knowledge: Deming and Quality of Education

“…Much has been written about possible unintended consequences of test-based accountability systems (see, for example, Amrein-Beardsley, Berliner, & Rideau, 2010;Baker et al, 2010;DarlingHammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012;Johnson, 2015;Koretz, 2008), including increased time and resources spent on testing, teaching to the test, cheating, effects on teacher workforce or motivation, and effects on long-term student outcomes such as love of learning. These potential consequences result from focusing on one part of the system instead of viewing the system as a whole as called for in Appreciation for a System.…”