Published Online: May 7, 2013
Published in Print: May 8, 2013, as Atlanta Cheating Essay Contains 'Empty Claims'


Atlanta Cheating Essay Contains 'Empty Claims'

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

To the Editor:

Michael J. Feuer's Commentary on the Atlanta cheating scandal contains his own set of empty claims in order to protect the use of standardized testing. Some examples:

• "Do we react to the worst instances of tax evasion by condemning the concept of taxation rather than by prosecuting the evaders?" Actually, we do. Certainly from people opposed to taxation generally and to current federal tax policy specifically. Even progressive tax-policy advocates recognize the distortions that enable cheating, and thus seek an overhaul to create a more effective system.

• "[E]ven if one could make an evidence-informed case that testing 'inevitably' leads to illegal behavior," there is "no evidence that federal policy causes cheating, or that 'cheating is inevitable.' " If testing inevitably leads to illegal behavior, the source of the test would indeed be implicated. This is one reason teachers have soured on President Barack Obama, whose administration promotes testing.

• "[W]hat's needed is a sensible approach to assessing the ratio of benefits to costs and to the design of mechanisms meant to keep the ratio strongly positive." Educators opposed to using tests as the sole metric for evaluating student learning derive their thinking from experienced cost-benefit analysis. They feel it is more effective to utilize a diversity of context-appropriate metrics.

• "We shouldn't allow score gains inflated from cheating to be misconstrued as evidence that any measured improvement in student learning ... must always be the result of cheating or other mischief." Mr. Feuer should request in-depth qualitative research into those schools that did improve. Then we can examine why.

I support Mr. Feuer's overarching point. We do a disservice to our students when our dialogue devolves into partisan abstractions about what is happening in schools. Effective discussion requires no one to cheat their way through an argument.

Neil J. Liss
Clinical Instructor
Willamette University
Salem, Ore.

Vol. 32, Issue 30, Page 28

Related Stories
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories