Contemplations on Atlanta’s CRCT Scandal
In February 2009, Atlanta superintendent Beverly Hall was honored as the 2009 Superintendent of the Year. Two years later, due to the biggest education scandal in U.S. history, she resigned.
In this metropolitan area, at least 178 teachers and principals have been reported to have changed students’ scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competence Test to create an illusion of an improvement on education quality. The investigation discovered that the index showing students’ progress on the test proved to be phony. This education scandal not only shamed Georgia’s education system, but also kindled a vehement debate on the CRCT and even a discussion on essential education values.
First of all, CRCT is not related to college admission. If high school seniors want to apply for colleges, they need to take either the SAT or ACT. The CRCT, which this article discusses, is the competency test given to students beginning in the third grade. The annual CRCT assesses students’ studying abilities and teachers’ teaching methods. Every school wants to demonstrate progress on the CRCT to meet standards. This test also determines teachers’ salary adjustments and continued employment.
In fact, this scandal is not the first of its kind. There are six states, as well as the D.C. area, in which similar cases have happened. In June, there were two or three pieces of news each week reporting such cases, but the Atlanta scandal is the biggest. The investigation discovered that at least 44 schools were involved in changing the scores, which stunned everyone.
In addition, the reason this scandal was discovered was that the fluctuation of students’ scores in two years was out of range, which brought great attention to the issue. Related governmental departments began to investigate and confirmed their initial doubts.
During the investigation, many executives refused to cooperate and even required teachers to do the same. When some teachers reminded the executives of the seriousness of the cheating, they were even silenced by their schools. The investigation report pointed out that in these cheating schools there existed an atmosphere of threats, intimidation and revenge. Now the scandal is exposed, and the public is paying great attention to whether these principals and teachers will be sued.
After this scandal in Atlanta, people who are truly concerned about education, in addition to denouncing such cheating, criticize the motivations behind the scandal.
In the past 10 years, has using the CRCT method to assess a teacher led teachers to cheat on scores in order to save their jobs? In addition, while the CRCT has become a main factor in measuring teachers’ bonuses, does it tempt teachers’ transgressions? Also, are the principals and administrators, who depend on student’s scores on the CRCT to gain more earnings or higher positions, the backstage manipulators?
Thoughts on this education scandal also apply to the higher education situation in Taiwan.
University professors’ promotions, assessments and bonuses are all based on tests such as the Science Citation Index, the Social Science Citation Index and the Taiwan Social Science Citation Index. Although they are, to some extent, objective, do they also need to be improved?
For example, many published essays from universities are attributed to students, though professors are also given credit in order to increase the quantity of their research. (Some professors allow students to become cooperative authors to demonstrate their attention to the students.)
Also, some professors share the same research results. Even though they have made no new discoveries or crucial contributions, these professors still count the results as their individual merit and even obtain bonuses based on the shared results. Some professors, due to their excellence in research, are hired by other universities, which should take the research of these professors into account only when they start to work in their new post. However, during university assessments, many universities add on the professors’ previous merits and research results. Is this just another way to cheat?
(The author is a researcher in the Center of International Relationship Studies of National Chengchi University.)
In this metropolitan area, at least 178 teachers and principals have been reported to have changed students’ scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competence Test to create an illusion of an improvement on education quality. The investigation discovered that the index showing students’ progress on the test proved to be phony. This education scandal not only shamed Georgia’s education system, but also kindled a vehement debate on the CRCT and even a discussion on essential education values.
First of all, CRCT is not related to college admission. If high school seniors want to apply for colleges, they need to take either the SAT or ACT. The CRCT, which this article discusses, is the competency test given to students beginning in the third grade. The annual CRCT assesses students’ studying abilities and teachers’ teaching methods. Every school wants to demonstrate progress on the CRCT to meet standards. This test also determines teachers’ salary adjustments and continued employment.
In fact, this scandal is not the first of its kind. There are six states, as well as the D.C. area, in which similar cases have happened. In June, there were two or three pieces of news each week reporting such cases, but the Atlanta scandal is the biggest. The investigation discovered that at least 44 schools were involved in changing the scores, which stunned everyone.
In addition, the reason this scandal was discovered was that the fluctuation of students’ scores in two years was out of range, which brought great attention to the issue. Related governmental departments began to investigate and confirmed their initial doubts.
During the investigation, many executives refused to cooperate and even required teachers to do the same. When some teachers reminded the executives of the seriousness of the cheating, they were even silenced by their schools. The investigation report pointed out that in these cheating schools there existed an atmosphere of threats, intimidation and revenge. Now the scandal is exposed, and the public is paying great attention to whether these principals and teachers will be sued.
After this scandal in Atlanta, people who are truly concerned about education, in addition to denouncing such cheating, criticize the motivations behind the scandal.
In the past 10 years, has using the CRCT method to assess a teacher led teachers to cheat on scores in order to save their jobs? In addition, while the CRCT has become a main factor in measuring teachers’ bonuses, does it tempt teachers’ transgressions? Also, are the principals and administrators, who depend on student’s scores on the CRCT to gain more earnings or higher positions, the backstage manipulators?
Thoughts on this education scandal also apply to the higher education situation in Taiwan.
University professors’ promotions, assessments and bonuses are all based on tests such as the Science Citation Index, the Social Science Citation Index and the Taiwan Social Science Citation Index. Although they are, to some extent, objective, do they also need to be improved?
For example, many published essays from universities are attributed to students, though professors are also given credit in order to increase the quantity of their research. (Some professors allow students to become cooperative authors to demonstrate their attention to the students.)
Also, some professors share the same research results. Even though they have made no new discoveries or crucial contributions, these professors still count the results as their individual merit and even obtain bonuses based on the shared results. Some professors, due to their excellence in research, are hired by other universities, which should take the research of these professors into account only when they start to work in their new post. However, during university assessments, many universities add on the professors’ previous merits and research results. Is this just another way to cheat?
(The author is a researcher in the Center of International Relationship Studies of National Chengchi University.)