GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Suransky’s ritual denial of systematic cheating invites ritual refutation. Here I go: cheating is real and metastatic in New York City schools. The evidence is massive and bulletproof, statistically confirmed and anecdotally supported. Notably, the DOE does not dispute specifics like the “65 bulge” in Regents scores, the 5 to 10% tampering in the 2009 Regents, and its 10-year do nothing approach to this politically beneficial crime spree. Nor will the DOE say whether the allegedly “historic” 65 % grad rate in 2010 controlled for the inevitable cheating.
I got a laugh from Suransky’s cite of “stronger legal protections for whistleblowers.” This summer I reported alleged credit recovery fraud   at the Cobble hill School of American Studies in Brooklyn, currently in turnaround. The DOE reacted by accusing me of “employee misconduct” for unauthorized possession of materials, that is, the discarded student portfolios showing scant recovery from the ludicrous 4-day course.
Walcott is right—New York is not Atlanta. But that’s only because we don’t have an independent investigation proving what every administrator and teacher knows—cheating is part of the culture of our schools.  

That’s not what Lazar was saying at all. He was saying that he should be able to double check his grading of essays, as those decisions can be somewhat subjective in the moment. He was arguing for fairness and thoroughness in judgment, not cheating. He was making the point that the policy — meant to stymie cheating — that doesn’t allow teachers grading essays to go back and re-check their work does not demonstrate much trust in the teachers’ professional judgment. Cheating, by the way, occurs under circumstances where leadership creates a high-pressure, high-stakes environment. It’s not because teachers simply want pass on their kids under some skewed notion of charity.

I’d like to check the tape on that.  His remark started on the issue of the lack of trust in teacher judgement by the state in new grading rules. He then gave a specific example about a specific student and his inability to find more points for that student, because the student in question had a learning disability and wouldn’t graduate without Lazar mining more points.

I agree that standardized tests are anti-student, anti-family and anti-education in their application and how results are used.  I was just shocked that Lazar seemed to advocate cheating (with good reasoning – if cheating can ever be justified) while bemoaning new anti-cheating rules.

 
Stephen Lazar’s skepticism re cheating is perplexing. Ever since my first AP in my first marking period in 2002 told me to pass 80% of my Latin students at Washinton Irving High School (when 80% were failing), I have studied, reported, and agitated against cheating. In ten years I have never talked to a teacher like Lazar who thought “it’s a small finite problem.” Where is the evidence for that beyond Walcott’s and Suransky’s empty denials?
 
As for Lazar’s lament that new rules block re-grading short-answers on Regents exams, oh really? Who was stopping Lazar? Principals and Aps generally steer clear of grading rooms to give them deniability if somebody blows the whistle. A teacher who marked Regents this June informed me that the new paper rules forbidding re-checking scores are easily surmounted and casually broken in this era of gun-to-the-head accountability.
 
May we hear from you further, brother Lazar?

I want to assume the best intentions and not let inelegance in explaining complex ideas result in the painting of Lazar with the broad stroke of a cheater. 

However, listening to him on the panel, I was dumbstruck by his lack of humility.  The E for E lady was vapid, unknowing and lazy in her comments but Lazar was arrogant and full of himself (so much so, in my understanding) that he brazenly complained that he couldn’t cheat on behalf of his student, again this is my interpretation but maybe a more humble educator would have been easier to understand.

this would appear to be a very simple solution, assuming people actually want a solution. 

Tim, it’s a good suggestion to “randomly assign teachers to administer exams”, but how would that procedure be implemented in a large comprehensive high school where there are over 150 teachers?  I feel that would be a logistic nightmare.  Usually in a large high school teachers are assigned to proctor regents that are not in their subject license.  This is the best approach and it has been done this way for many, many years. Proctoring in a small school where all the teachers know all the students would probably benefit from the random assignment and having the regents marked by those teachers who were randomly assigned.  But in a large high school, it’s impossible. 
 
 

Another year coming.  All about survival now and pretty much nothing to do with teaching.  I have about 23 years in and several more to go until I’m 55.  The sad state of the DOE and what has happened to my school and others has really destroyed the outlook for actual teaching.  The students are so low functioning with 2nd-5th grade levels coming into high school that it’s pretty hard to do much of anything.  Survival is the key.  I recently jumped into a school rated a “B” which will give me several more years before it starts to tank with dumb kids, resulting in consecutive C’s or even D’s.  It’s so sad to know you’re in a profession where the school you choose to work in is based on what “group” is attending.  You must survive and choose wisely as schools with dumb students will cost you to become an ATR which is ridiculous.  You must select a school to work in where they select their kids and do not take “over the counters” in October and November.  Dumb kids = Failing schools.  Good luck everyone and let’s hope for a quick year building towards retirement.

Tim,

I’m one of those favorite teachers who roots and cheers for his students to pass anything from a quiz to a high stakes exam. I think it’s safe to say that my students passing their high stakes exam is goal that they and I share (shared goals).  As that favorite, I want to be there on exam day, giving pats on the back, high fives and reminding my kids that they’re really really smart, no matter what, the exam results are (I teach to the same HS exam Philip taught). 

YES, if the identified problem is to ensure there will never ever again be cheating, then your suggestion is one awesome solution. Send us (teachers) all to a different school on test day and on grading days for HS regents exams. Slam dunk. 

But, at the risk of sounding like a hippie, that solution would further undermine the authority of teachers in front of  their students. It would send, yet another message, to the community of students and parents (and bystanders) alike, that teachers are not to be trusted. Given that teachers are already not trusted (in high schools) with the ability to even take a second look at a student’s regents exam), I think your solution would even further undermine, and even erode, the view that teachers are trustworthy and just moral agents in our society. I don’t like the specter of my trust undermined, just because someone else cheated on some (extremely stupid) state exam. Furthermore, it’s been shown that one of the biggest incentives for people who do the types of things that teachers do is autonomy (it’s an MIT study). Your suggestion would destroy that autonomy that teachers have during testing times. I’m not prepared to go nuclear on ALL teachers just to solve that one problem.

Philip’s story is a compelling one toward the point I’m trying to make. At his suggestion, a NYTimes search revealed that he was in his later ages when he moved to teaching and had had a professional career (in journalism?) before he did. This was a man who everyone viewed as having the highest of integrity in terms of 
what we ask of teachers to be.

He was pressured, by his AP, into giving points on a social studies regents exam that students did not deserve. He resisted, and blew a whistle (bad politics, if you ask me, but the righteous thing to do to be sure). The results, which ended poorly for him, implicated him and not his building leaders. To repeat, the reputation of a man who was viewed as having very integrity before the episode, was ruined. to my knowledge, this teacher, with high integrity, is currently not running a classroom. That is shameful.

But more shameful?? THE CHEATING WASN’T HIS FAULT!!!!  We see this in Atlanta as well. The cheating, the report noted, was not the fault of the teachers so much as the building leaders and the teachers (probably via the building leaders using as little tool that I like to call positive pressure within the organizational unit).  Why does a solution have to be something that upsets the workings, the autonomy, and (in cases like me) the pure pleasure (of acting like a coach on test day) of being a teacher???? Why shoot the buck private enlisted man???

Sure, you’ll end cheating forever. Ok. Gotcha.  But 1)undermining teacher authority 2) doing the same to his/her autonomy 3)failing to address who’s really at fault for cheating (as well as falling into this ‘blame the teacher’ trap) and, yes, 4) making the job suck for honest, hardworking blokes like me are three reasons why your (very intelligent) idea genuinely, GENUINELY G E N U I N E L Y sucks for people like me. 

Could …could you think of something that doesn’t require the teachers to not have contact with their students? How about changing the exams? There is MUCH promise with this PBA approach and it’s possible formation into standardized year-long performance portfolio consisting of several PBAs. It’s on the horizon now!!! Can we please not spit -once again- in the faces of hard working teachers and claim that it’s the only solution to ONE given problem??? 

Please???

Please Tim????

This could be the funniest and most true statement on here that I have ever read.  This sums up my situation pretty much as well.  A+!!

Where have you been, John G.? If teachers obeyed rules, we would not have a cheating scandal, such as it is, involving 1,252 cheating complaints between 2003 and 2010 and the incriminating 65 bulge in Regents results. Whom do you think made all those complaints and  changed all those scores?
 
You didn’t see a way to fudge grading Global Regents? How about this? You compare your essay score sheet with your rating partner’s. If his are lower than yours, risking an unacceptable pass rate, you ask your partner to erase his original scores and pencil in more points. As you know, raising a 1 to a 2 or a 2 to a 3 in either or both essays, is sufficient to push a lot of kids on or just over 65. Or you check the multiple choice results to decide how much scrubbing you would have to do on the essays in order pass a nice kid you taught and like.
 
Lazar need not beat his breast over lost autonomy, etc. First, no rule forbids him to reread an essay before settling on a final score. If in doubt, he can leave the score sheet blank and go on to the next booklet in his pile. Second, the rule against rescoring is designed to curb biased re-readings by friendly teachers like Lazar AFTER exams are graded and the students need a couple of point to pass.
 
When shall we hear from the fellow himself?  

Get a grip John G. Regents are not your exams. The state created them and owns them. Students should have no expectation that their favorite teacher will do the grading. Fathers don’t umpire their boys’ Little League games either. Just tell your sensitive charges that Advance Placement exams are scored by outsiders, too.
 
I couldn’t help notice that you bobbled my story. I was never pressured into Regents tampering at Cobble Hill and never inflated a score. Just the opposite. I blew the whistle on a cheating ring led by an imperious AP and, as chapter leader, made sure to get immunity for the intimidated teachers dragged into her scheme. OSI confirmed my allegations. The AP resigned; the Principal was removed for covering-up; and the LIS was reprimanded in writing for helping him.
 
After that, things got complicated. I wound up in the rubber room for three years on three trumped up charges involving corporal punishment and discrimination. When NYSUT refused my demand to go after the DOE’s corrupt retaliation, I went pro se and gained acquittal on all specified charges. To my serious satisfaction, the Arbitrator ripped the DOE’s investigators, chief witnesses, and theories. Still, sunk in  Solomonic perversion, he shafted me with a $10,000 fine.   

To be clear,
Philip, there is a problem with people who believe that anyone who thinks differently from them is dishonest. It, among other things, prevents professionals from ever finding a common ground -without which they could never ever move forward.

I’ve got a grip old timer. I promise. Regents are not my exams, .but my students are my students. I take ownership in their success (that’s what all real teachers do). 

I’m not sure if they expect I’d be grading their exams, and I’m not sure where you dreamed up that inference, but (so that I could be clear to folks like you), I was trying to answer to the issue of being near them or the exams on test days (as I read Tim’s suggestion). 

My charges? Wow, you ARE an insultive and bitter man! Tell me Philip, what ,in your opinion, DO students deserve in terms of support from their teacher? Clearly, the teacher rooting his/her students doesn’t seem natural to you.  Double checking a failing exam paper is off limits. Even grading an exam is out of bounds to someone like you. What responsibilities do you believe you have (or shall I say, had) for your students? It seems clear to me that you don’t understand why a teacher would take ownership of the results of his/her students. That’s more or less all I need to know.

I do, however, apologize for flubbing your story. You were never accused of cheating. Perhaps I shouldn’t have made the comment while in the middle of storm prep. Perhaps I should have rightly considered it less important to the (much more important than) point that I was trying to make. Regardless, apologies for not remembering that you were never pressured into cheating .. just pressured, by building leaders into not blowing the whistle (via punishing observations after you did). I really think it feeds the same point (that teachers don’t really creating, but building leaders do) but whatever.

$10,000, though. Yikes! Hey, need a loan?

John,
First, your stats need refinement. Even if all 1,252 cheating complaints were accurate, it does not follow that cheating was limited to that number. There could be ten times more unreported instances of cheating for all we know.
 
Second, you cannot restrict cheating only to those teachers who did the actual dirty work. What about the rest of the graders who witnessed the tampering and did nothing to stop it or report it in violation of city law.  
 
Third, you have dodged the evidence of the constant “65 bulge” in Regents scores. Who was responsible, if not teachers? Who covered up this decade long crime spree, if not colleagues in the grading room?  
 
Fourth, you challenged me re cheating possibilities in grading Global Regents. Yet you zing me for explaining how it’s done.  
 
Fifth, you and Lazar are the best cases for strict and blind Regents grading. You confirm you own bias when you write: “… And rooting for kids to pass a stupid test. If they wind up a point or two below passing, I deserve to see if either I or a colleague may have graded a short answer too low by regrading.” But you don’t get it. By your logic, you should recheck scores a point or two above 65 to make sure you didn’t grant undeserved points.

Jbrez,
I’ll answer the first question you asked; because humans grade the exams and humans make errors. Is it possible to mine for points using the honest  ’was anything graded wrong’ approach? and rule? you’re still minign for points, but you are respecting rules of accuracy and advocacy both at the same time.

Such as the error you made when you asserted that Lazar somehow advocated for cheating. Or your assertion that I’m old. Under your rules, you would not even have the right to go back and double check to see that you were, in fact, wrong on both those issues. 

Finally, my issue wasn’t with whether I could be thoughtful or respectful or fair in how I graded the first time. If that were the issue, I wouldn’t as calm as I am now. My issue is with not having the ability to go back a double check for errors. I have never cheated once in my grading in 10 years, and I would like you to know that it (the new rules) DOES change much in process of grading.

You are, of course, a teacher in one of the effected subjects and therefore have a right to make that assertion, yes??

Yes. Scores should be rechecked whether above or below if they’re close. I’ve been teaching for 11 years and I have double checked both, twice a year. I have been in different schools and my colleagues in each have done both twice a year. I’m surprised that this isn’t your experience.

For comparing me to Lazar, thanks. He’s an awesome educator. Me? not so much.  But if he and share a need to be thorough with regard to student points, then it only means that we care about our students. 

So you’re saying that caring teachers, who are concerned for students’ grades, are automatically corrupt enough to cross a line of honesty? Withotu any middle ground at all?? Do you even realize how unintelligent that sounds? Or is it you who doesn’t get it.I do not remember zinging you. Only asserting that honest teachers did not think in the way that “your friend” seemed to (3 different suggestions, as I recall). If that assertion made you feel ‘zinged’, then I am (again) sorry for hurting your feelings.I did not try to dodge the WSJ’s article. I do not think that a paper with such a clear point of view against teachers and our union should be taken as seriously as you take the 65 bulge story, but ok. Let’s address it.  If you’d like to me answer who was responsible for any cheating in that story, I would ask you first to provide me a story where widespread cheating occurred and building leaders were NOT involved. Provide the details and the sources. If possible, links. We know you cannot list Atlanta, because that report was very clear. In fact, it’s the most detailed report about cheating there is and it clearly lists administrators as leading the charge. But bring forth your details and I will NOT dodge a response wherever it leads.I’m not addressing your first two concerns. The  whole cockroach theory moves too far beyond facts.

Regarding the wisdom and ethics of biased Regents grading you and Lazar are from Pluto and Jbrez and I are from the Big Dipper.Let’s conclude on that.

Wow, and you called me arrogant! That’s a blast.

I understand from your comment that
1. you’ve never made a mistake from grading
2. wouldn’t care if you did
3. think that any teacher who would care is automatically involved in systemic cheating
(3a. I guess are certain that were more shooters on the grassy knoll???)
4. Are ashamed of yourself.

So after witnessing you respond to my very polite difference from your opinion with personal insults, my question is; which one of these do YOU think I agree with most??

Ok, so you like to cheat kids, have it your way.

You seem to care a great deal about maintaining this right to do so.  By your own admission, you are not a very good teacher, maybe you should work on that.

The only thing I know about Lazar is what I heard from his own mouth.  I didn’t realize he had groupies.

See you are a good teacher, you taught me what a blog is.

“Funniest”? Well, sure. Unless you’re a student in one of your guys’s classes, or their parents, or a taxpayer. But for everyone else, yeah, it’s lolz galore!