Howard Blume
L.A. School Board to Close Six Charter Schools Caught Cheating (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0302-lausd-charters-20110302,0,1573991.story)
L.A. Times
March 2nd, 2011
Summary: Six LA schools used actual test questions to prepare students for standardized tests. They are now at risk of being closed down. The issue is still up in the air and the article covers the possible outcomes of the fiasco.
Intended Audience: General Public
Key Points: 1) Despite wide support for charter schools in LA, they are not above the rule, 2) Punishment for charter schools will be swift and harsh
Relevance: I may be wrong, but I am not convinced that what these teachers did was "cheating." It may not have been the best or most honest method of instruction, but is using actual test question as preparation for the test cheating? I had a sociology course in college that did precisely this. We knew exactly which questions were going to be on the test because the teacher told us. It wasn't a very good class, and I did feel "cheated" but did not feel that I was "cheating." Of course, if the district has precise language regarding this, then a policy has been broken and the teachers should be reprimanded. Still, I am not convinced that "cheating" is the proper language to describe what the teachers were doing. Simply labeling the teachers as cheaters fails to address the conversation honestly and directly. Why were the teachers doing this? What were their motives? Did they believe it was cheating? Why or why not? There is a great big discussion to have here, and I hope that they had it.
It seems like cheating to me. I mean, I understand there's a gray area. For example, it's not uncommon for teachers to give hints or guides of what will be on the test. "Here are 6 topics, 4 will be on the test Monday." There are open book tests, take home tests, etc... The hardest test I had in college was an 'open book take home test'. It took me 10 hours to complete. But these examples are 'Bruner' style exams. Where one must convey understanding of the material, context, mastery. Simply having the answers is not enough.
ReplyDeleteThe tests in L.A. were undoubtedly multiple choice. Wouldn't giving the students practice questions very similar to the test questions be enough preparation? The teachers erred by crossing the line and giving them the *actual* questions. Even if they believed it wouldn't matter to the students if the questions were the same or similar, they were wrong. At best, it makes the teachers look extremely lazy for not bothering to change the examples.
There was a scene in that great college movie filmed in Eugene, Animal House, where the Delta students went dumpster diving to acquire the carbon paper for their upcoming exam. Wasn't that cheating? And how is what the teachers in L.A. did any different?
I'm curious as to how many public schools were closed for cheating on standardized tests.
ReplyDelete