Integrity from all

Kara Lewis

Texas Woman’s University

Course – EDUC 5113: Laws, Ethics, and Professional Roles and Responsibilities

April 7, 2014

Abstract

The word ethics spans a wide range of meanings, especially within the realm of education. That is why there is no surprise that the Texas Administrative Code’s requirements for educators highlight a variety of areas classifying teacher etiquette. The standard I identify with most comes from the first section defining policies and practices. Standard 1.6 states “[t]he educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so” (State Board for Educator Certification, 2010). I feel as though this section of the Educator’s Code of Ethics is its most vital component due to the fact the success of the students and schools rest on their teachers’ integrity and ability to be proficient educators. As I said, this issue is something that affects the education system at a variety of levels.

In the most serious light, falsifying test scores or other academic data reflecting student progress and achievement causes school districts to become the center of scrutiny. Because of policies like the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind, schools have felt the pressure of meeting or exceeding federally set standards. The piece of legislature was optimistic in its outlook, and it was proposed to see betterment in education universally.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a piece of legislation with a clear vision. It imagined a world where every student in the United States—particularly those belonging to historically disadvantaged groups—met basic standards of literacy and numeracy. It imagined a path to that world that did not require spending significantly more money, but rather focusing on directing resources more efficiently toward this basic goal. In a foreshadowing of the era of “big data,” it introduced a national mandate for standardized testing, imagining test scores as the key to understanding and addressing the shortcomings of the American education system. (Ahn, 2013, p. 3)

As stated by Ahn and Vidgor in their evaluation of the effectiveness standardized testing for the National Research Association, a big focus was placed on assessments by the federal government as a means to track student progress. Though the government is monitoring and tracking the scores, the individual states were responsible for the tests being administered. Standardized testing was an issue for some states before the Bush Administration passed the legislature. In the state of Texas, the STAAR test, the current test given to students, was preceded by the TAKS and TAAS tests. The TAKS took affect directly before No Child Left Behind was passed, but the test before it, the TAAS, was the one surrounded with controversy. In 2000, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund fought the requirement of the test for graduation purposes in San Antonio, Texas in GI Forum, et al., v. Texas Education Agency, et al., CA No. SA-97-CA-1278EP. Plaintiffs claimed that the required testing infringed on “minority students’ equal protection and due process rights as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunity Act” (Saucedo, 2000). The controversy surrounding the test escalated after the scores produced a divide in the amount of students that were not being promoted to the next grade level. Testing showed that the students who identified as being Hispanic or African American dropped in graduation rate from 60% to 50%, while their Caucasian classmates also experienced a reduction in their success. Over a span of eight years, the minority groups had not regained the graduation rate they had experienced pre-testing, but their Caucasian counterparts had increased their successes to 70% after only a year. (The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, n.d.) Through looking at these statistics, there is an evident divide that occurs between the ethnicities. Though they are receiving the same instruction and opportunities, there was something occurring preventing equal or marginally equal success between the groups. Divides like this become associated with the test being an unfair gauge of student progress, which is why the MALDEF brought the case before the state. The affects of the lower test scores were also experienced at the national level.

The TAAS increases grade retention, drives up the dropout rate, and increasingly controls teaching and instruction, turning many schools into test coaching programs. […] In one report, Professor Walt Haney of Boston College demonstrated that the gap in the pass rates between white students and minority students is large enough to be defined as a “racially discriminatory impact” under federal civil rights law. (n.d.)

From the research into the case done by Professor Haney, one can observe the grounds that the party had to present the case. After deliberation by the courts, it was decided the defense entered the trial with a stronger case. The courts ruled in favor of the test calling it “valid and reliable” (Phillips, 2000, 343) and that it “met applicable professional standards, including notice and opportunity to learn” (Phillips, 2000). Ironically, the test became a podium for President George W. Bush to preach the effectiveness of his legislature, and Texas was pinpointed as “a ‘poster child’ for high-stakes testing” (n.d.). As stated earlier, the test has now evolved into the STAAR, but evaluation areas are still compliant under the federal standards required by the former president’s movement. However, these pressures and arguments have not been isolated to Texas.

In 2009, it came to light that elementary and middle schools in Atlanta, Georgia altered their 2007, 2008, and 2009 standardized test scores to meet or exceed national standards. The scandal included the superintendent and 180 educators (Proctor, 2013), many of who testified as being “pressured and harassed” (Niesse, 2014) into falsifying scores by their school principals. The trial, which began in 2012, has been monumental in stature with over two million documents having been submitted as evidence to review and over 2,500 witnessed testifying their experiences with the conspiracy. (2013) From this ongoing set of trials, the necessity of the Texas Education bodies to include this clause it’s Code of Ethics is apparent. As observed earlier, state tests in Texas, including the TAAS, have been problematic in the state’s past and have caused gaps that reflect negatively in the federal eye. The teachers are the ones in the room leading instruction and setting the example for student character. When they misstep, as they did in Atlanta, the reflection of teacher’s ethics extends to the schools and districts they are a part of. In this particular situation, teachers realized their role in the scandal not only affected their own careers, but their ability to be effective teachers to those in their communities.

“As a teacher, I know I hurt the people who trusted me the most: students and their parents,” Oden told Baxter. “… My actions did not help my students learn.”

Broadwater, who also admitted to test cheating, said he regretted he could not be a positive role model for his students. “I have failed both students and their families,” Broadwater told Baxter. “I have no excuse for my dishonest and unethical behavior.”

In his letter, Broadwater told his former students and their families, “I sincerely apologize for my actions for disappointing you. I only hope that one day you will forgive me.” (2014)

The remorse the educators expressed shows the level of accountability teachers place upon themselves as pillars of morality for those they surround. Though this mindset may be present in some teachers, the world is imperfect, and it functions with the help of rules and regulations that serve as reminders. Through including the value of honesty in Standard 1.6, the Texas Code of Ethics for Educators has shown that even in failures that feel beyond hope, we are still to uphold the standard of integrity we expect of our students when they perform their work.

As a teacher, I plan on upholding this clause of the Code of Ethics in my classroom by requiring the same discipline and integrity out of myself that I place on my students. I will also challenge my teachers around me to meet this standard. In doing this, the campus will be honest with itself about its shortcomings. If students are not succeeding on assessments and in class, there is a disconnect occurring somewhere in our school or their home environments that is causing a roadblock that is impossible to pass. Through being honest self-evaluators, we can diagnose a problem and seek out a plan to remedy it before it becomes a state or federal issue. By creating a pillar of character for the community to mirror, educators do not put themselves at as much risk for the scrutiny of their policies. This is because of the transparency touched upon earlier. As a teacher, I can implement this in my classroom by starting small and aligning the expectations of my students the first day of school with a syllabus. In this, I can place expectations of behavior, a personal definition of cheating, and the ramifications of failing to meet the expectations I have in place. Because of the heaviness that comes with a syllabus, I will stress that the reasons these expectations and sanctions have been put into place is to allow for student success. Success is not getting perfect grades on every assignment, but rather, it is a mark of progress in a student’s learning from day one to the last day of school. This mirrors the policies put in place by No Child Left Behind. Though certain scores are given as goals on the benchmark tests the students are required to take, the federal government defines success for the school and student as improvement on their scores from the ones from prior years. By letting my students know progress not perfection defines success in my classroom, I feel as though they will be more motivated to push themselves and approach me with issues rather than depend on their classmates as the solution to their problems. I also plan on providing a rubric for each assignment given. By outlining the academic expectations for a student the same way the legislature breaks down the measures of student success for teachers, I am making them aware of what tools they need in order to improve themselves.

One can argue that it is hard to abide to one’s sense of honesty and integrity when much pressure is placed upon you. It takes strength of emotion and intellect not to take the easy way out and falsify information, or force another to, as a way to save the reputation you have built. Because of these human temptations, it only makes sense that the state would put in place a code for those who are working with children to follow to ensure they are being proper mentors and guides. It is for this reason that I see Standard 1.6 as being the most important guidepost for teachers in Texas Code of Ethics for Educators. Teachers set the example for students to be successful, and in changing the information relevant to them, they are cheating both themselves and their students. As seen above, these transgressions are not taken lightly when they are exposed in the court system. Through the rulings, it becomes apparent that there is no legal nor easy solution to a shortcoming. It takes the strength of good character, and Standard 1.6 sets the bar for said character by requiring the virtue of honesty.

References

Ahn, T. & Vigdor, J. (2013, May) Were All Those Periodical Tests for Nothing?: The Lessons of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/files/2013/05/17/-vigdor-and-ahn-nclb-sanctions-paper_15005080098.pdf

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing. (n.d.) The Case Against TAAS. Retrieved from http://www.fairtest.org/case-against-taas

Niesse, M. & Rankin, B. (2014, January 6). Six enter guilty pleas in APS test-cheating case. The Atlanta Journal Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/news/more-guilty-pleas-today-in-aps-test-cheating-case/ncdL9/

Phillips, S. E. (2000). GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency: Psychometric Evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(4), 343-385. Retrieved from http://marces.org/mdarch/pdf/1000024.pdf

Proctor, Aungelique. (2013, June 10). Motion hearings begin for Atlanta cheating scandal. Fox 5 Atlanta. Retrieved from http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22550269/motion-hearings-begin-for-aps-cheating-scandal#axzz2yDdFtNEv

Saucedo, L. M. (2000, November). The Legal Issues Surrounding the TAAS Case. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 411-422. doi: 10.1177/0739986300224003 or http://hjb.sagepub.com/content/22/4/411.abstract

State Board for Educator Certification. (2010, December 26). Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators. In Texas Administrative Code (Educator’s Code of Ethics). Retrieved from http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&ti=19&ch=247&rl=2

Wilson v. Dallas Independent School District. 376 S.W.3d 319. (2012). Retrieved from