But doesn't think indicate more a screwed up response to testing, rather than the evil of testing itself? How about your school trusts you to teach the curriculum and a well-taught curriculum is measured in the test scores? How about within your school, you all know that not everyone gets kids with the same skill level coming in, so you judge each others results accordingly?

I agree that testing shouldn't be the only measure, and I especially think that results should focus on growth rather than absolute proficiency measures unrelated to where the kids came in.

But when schools do stuff just to game the results (here I don't mean cheating, but I mean the stuff you described like not tutoring some kids since their results are expected to change the school level outcome), that's not the fault of testing. It's the stupid way administrators take shortcuts rather than focusing on good teaching. It's a choice to go with what they perceive as easier rather than doing the right thing. The tests aren't to blame for that.

Exactly. We've always had standardized tests. I took them in school. It's the way that they are being interpreted and used to change the curriculum by administrators that is the problem. The actual tests are not the problem. Tests can be an excellent tool but shouldn't be the only one. Nor should they only be used to pat the backs of proficient or advanced students/ teachers. A bad result is an area for improvement, not a sign to fire a teacher or dismantle a school.

I think comparative bad test results among kids who started at the same place and with similar level of home support IS probably indicative of a problem with the teacher or with the school. And I think that after five years of the same problem, dismantling a school might be the way to go.

But I don't think that's what has happened with NCLB. I think that we've been seeing similar results for kids with similar achievement levels and demographics at most schools we've tested (relative to the particular state's test), and we've just been labeling more and more schools as the proficiency standard goes up.

I do think that we've seen actual gains in student achievement over the years as measured by NAEP (even though the gains weren't as great as the gains on the tests the states were pushing), so I think NCLB did actually do good things, especially for subgroup kids.

But I think it's particularly revealing that just as the traditionally "good" schools will start having trouble with AYP since the proficiency standards are really high, politicians are suddenly concerned with amending the law*. I guess it was okay to label all the poor, majority minority schools failing, but it's a travesty to do it to the suburban stars.

*The only way it was ever realistic to have everyone at grade level was if your standard for grade level was really, really low.

It all comes down to money. Admins do take these shortcuts because we're under pressure to have our schools make the API & AYP scores here in California. What blows for us is that if your school does not make them, you get taken over by the state & get lots of money given to your school to purchase computers, ipads for teachers & admins, etc. If your school does make AYP & API scores, you get a pat on the back & no money. I've given the test & looked at it. All I can say is :rolleyes:. It's wishful thinking to believe that teachers will be trusted to teach the curriculum around here because of the level of importance placed on testing by admins & district officials.

There have been hints of cheating around here but nothing to the level of Atlanta (at least that's been disclosed).

As for good teaching, teachers no longer have the freedoms to have well-balanced & well-rounded students. For example, at my school, our focus is on reading, writing & math. All art, music & "fluff" curriculum have been cut. We are not allowed to waste time teaching science & social studies after March b/c standardized tests don't test those in the primary grades. LAME!
We have to stick to the curriculum (either HM or Open Court) and that's it. Creativity is NOT encouraged whatsoever. So sad. :(

While not directly "losing funds" for failure to meet the AYP, the following requirement definitely leads to losing funds within a district:

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 also established new educational options for students who attend Title I schools that are identified for improvement. School districts must offer these students the option to transfer to another school in the district that is not identified for improvement and must provide or pay for transportation. If the district does not have space to accommodate all transfer requests, it must give priority to low-achieving students from low-income families.

http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7...5666--,00.html


So, they lose the funding for those students who choose to transfer AND must pay for their transportation even if they aren't receiving funding for them.

Well, these transfers are limited to the same district, so while the funds might move from one school to another, they are still within APS: APS wouldn't lose money on the transfers themselves.

They might lose money for the transportation costs certainly, but I doubt that's what all this was about really.

ETA: I didn't know if you'd know this or not since you're in a different professional field, but teaching contracts are at the district level rather than the school level (I think everywhere, but certainly in Georgia). So a teacher wouldn't necessarily need to be afraid that if enrollment went down at her school because of transfers within the district that she'd lose her job. If you were going to be renewed for the next year performance and experience-wise and there were still the same number of kids in the district, you'd probably just get moved to a new school since you are a district employee, not a school employee. The administrators might be in a different boat, but if the district itself weren't corrupt, they wouldn't have anything to worry about either. The county office would know the challenges they faced at their schools and would have reasonable expectations for improvement. And since the total pool of funding wouldn't really be reduced, they'd be able to offer support.

I don't have a supporting document to link, but I think I've seen previously that a very low percentage of kids at Needs Improvement Schools choose to transfer, so the new transportation costs would probably be a drop in the bucket.

The next paragraph in that link I posted is:
If the district does not have any other school to which students can transfer, it is required to attempt to make arrangements with neighboring districts and is expected to make additional efforts to improve the services in the identified schools.

This is what is happening here. School of choice has kids flocking to neighboring districts. It tends to be the parents who are engaged and the kids who are successful who leave the school so the original district loses the kids who would succeed and their AYP drops even more. Most of the districts in my immediate area have only one high school. Even as schools are making cuts now, the superintendents and school boards are pretty much colluding so that they are cutting the same things to avoid further loss of students to the other districts. When they were talking about cutting AP classes at my kids' high school, I told them we'd just school of choice to the district closest to my house. Then that district contemplated the same exact cuts. Thankfully, neither district cut AP classes. Those cuts weren't related to students leaving due to school of choice though, just massive cuts in funding from the state.

I agree, AGDee. As a product of public schools, I remember when zones were changed so that the public schools could be ranked in terms of "haves/smart kids/other high status groups" and "have nots/smart kids/other low status groups." Before then, each school was more diverse in terms of social class, family background, race and ethnicity, and therefore (since these are highly correlated) school performance and educational attainment. I'm sure people can figure out what the outcome of that was and that persisted even after the state provided funding for the "have not" schools. What Joe Clark did is a rarity. And there are families who would transfer if they could financially and legally do so. But, we don't want everyone to transfer, that would defeat the purpose and admit that there are lesser schools. Yikes. Remember the cases of Tonya McDowell and Yolanda Miranda who both got caught lying about their addresses for school purposes?


I say, again, what is going on in APS is going on in other public schools systems (especially those that serve particular demographics) across the country. I'm not concerned with the cheating scandal (that has been caught) but with why they felt the need to do this. I doubt it was just loser teachers and staff who were too darn lazy and wanted to misappropriate funds. But, if people insist that's what the issue is, why are these schools being given teachers and staff who are lazy losers who want to misappropriate funds? That type of thing wouldn't fly in certain school districts.

The issues of school resources, standardized tests, zoning, and districting have been discussed since the 1980s. These issues are assessed based on outcome and not intent. The intent of having standardized tests is not the point. No one is saying standardized tests are THE problem; nor are people blaming those who thought/think tests are a good idea--I consider tests to be a decent idea ONLY when students (across schools and across districts) are given the proper preparation. The outcome of these tests and zoning across the country is the real point. The outcome reveals some issues that people across the country have been finding various ways to address.

/long post

Who is insisting this?

I think it was caused by a county office and superintendent who wanted the appearance of achievement and the accolades that went with it, even though they had no faith in their staff or in their students. And they created the pressure for everyone else. I think there are probably a small number of teachers and principals, as there were elsewhere in the state, who would have been willing to cheat anyway because as individuals they wanted to look good or wanted their kids to look good. But I have no reason to think those individuals, independent of the corrupt county office and the pressure the county office created, would have been overrepresented in APS.

There are very similar districts in the Atlanta area (and in other urban areas of the state) that have the demographics and history that I think your are describing, and they didn't have similar wide spread problems with cheating. So it's kind of hard to think that APS's issues were caused by larger social issues that might seem to excuse the county leadership when other very similar districts were able to resist.

AGDee, we're not seeing transfers between districts down here, even at similar schools who didn't cheat and were labeled Needs Improvement. Maybe people don't realize they can request them. But because it isn't happening, I doubt that presented a tangible enough fear in the leadership to drive the pressure. I think you're looking at people who got tired of people thinking they were in charge of "bad" school, wanted to look good, and were willing to do whatever it took, even if it meant cheating first the kids and then everyone else. Something was uniquely, at least for Georgia, wrong in this system, I suspect it's going to come back to the superintendent, although I think it may have been even more her core staff that were responsible.

ETA: We've got other dysfunctional systems in Georgia for sure, regardless of the history and demographics, but in most of them, individual teachers are still apparently expected to act ethically and still do apparently for the most part, even when the leadership is nutty. I think the difference is that the leadership in APS, maybe aided by previous dysfunction, was able to go educationally Enron.

UGAalum- I agree with your assessment. Beverly Hall's arrogance is off the charts unbelievable. And I just watched a press conference on the noon news in which 3 of the parties named in the investigation as cheaters flatly denied any involvement. Where does it go from here? IMO the majority of the teachers in the APS want to do a good job and sincerely care if the children in their charge are successful. Should they do a clean sweep of the administration including the school board? Not sounding like a bad idea at this point.

General comment. The point is there are overarching issues that led to the cheating.

This is an example of an overarching issue.

In this case, I change my post to:
"...if people insist that's what the issue is, why do these school districts have county offices and superintendents who only want the appearance of appearance and accolades; have no faith in teachers, staff, and students; and who overtly or covertly encourage cheating, misappropriation of funds, or whatever else? That type of thing wouldn't fly in certain school districts."

Cheating is not the end-all-and-be-all, whether districts are caught or not. This thread just happens to be about cheating but, as my post said, I am not too concerned with that. The issues that are pervasive in these school districts manifest themselves in different ways.

Right so there is something going on that is impacting APS just as it does districts with similar dynamics across the country. Whether it is cheating or some other observable outcome, there is an outcome.

I think removing an elected board might prove tricky, but it's going to depend on what can be proven that they knew about, I guess. And if you've driven around in Atlanta lately to see various, "APS Board, Step Up or Step Down" signs, it may prove the case that they all just get voted out over the next few elections anyway. But the thing about Atlanta politics is that you never can tell: most metro area votes are, I think, kind of amazed at the personalities on the board and city council, but that's who won the last elections.

I think I favor criminal charges and professional sanctions for anyone that can be proven, either in court or by the Professional Standard Commission, to have participated in the cheating or the cover up. And then, you take the action that would follow conviction on a case by case basis. If you've lost your certificate, then obviously they've got to let you go. If you've been convicted of fraud, I suspect that you'd be let go from your administrative position. (But I'm not sure the voters of Atlanta wouldn't re-elect you.)

I have the feeling, though, that if there's an effort just to completely clean house, some innocent people who sincerely care about the kids and doing the right thing will be thrown out as well. It's possible that new talent would be attracted to a restructure APS, though, so who knows?

That might be a big part of it right there. It seem like the cray-cray is unleashed every election day and the voters keep making the same sad choices (my opinion only). Two words: Emma Darnell.

Because the voters in those districts aren't minding the store? Because the same voters graduated from these schools or schools like them? Because the culture of mismanagement has run that way so long and people who have resources* elect not to live in the districts most impacted by the mismanagement and corruption? Because we decided that people even in poor and minority districts have the right to self government in elected officials and are reluctant to intervene in a paternalistic fashion, short of the elected officials or their appointees actually having broken the law?

I don't think there's any magic bullet to fix any of that.

But we can insist that public employees not cheat and commit fraud, and we can take action when they actually do break the law or violate clear professional standards.

And that improves things a little for the kids. They and their teachers the following year get a more accurate picture of their skill level and they can know where to being with real instruction.

*Actually, I think it's only people with middle class level resources who choose certain districts. People with even more resources opt out completely and go to private schools.

http://www.albanyherald.com/home/hea...t_on_CRCT.html

The state is going to complete its investigation of Dougherty County school, too.

This is the main Albany, Georgia system down in the southwest corner of the state.

It's interesting to read the full comments because they mention equal protection and concerns about seeming to single out Atlanta.

ETA:http://www.ajc.com/news/suspicious-t...ad-296490.html
This supports the idea that there's cheating all over.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-crct...al-295376.html
This lets one see how different different school systems are in terms of the numbers of classrooms flagged.

http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ayp2010/search.asp
And this, if you are super nerdy, would allow you to look at the demographics of the test takers in all the districts.

Only looking at a couple of districts, it looks like there's more cheating in districts with more poor kids, which I think most people might expect because there'd be a perception that the kids started out behind so teachers would be panicky*. But I don't think you see too many whole systems, even with a lot of poor schools, with high rates of flagged classroom. *I think people would expect to see the same about cheating all over if having really high scores mattered to the test takers but all that matters with the CRCT is passing.