The AJC has been covering allegations of cheating in Atlanta public schools since it first reported on unusual jumps in test scores, eventually triggering a state probe. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about the investigation. If you have other questions you'd like to see addressed, e-mail atuck@ajc.com.
Q: Since the allegation seems to be that teachers and others cheated because of the money they would receive if they made their academic targets, how do you explain the fact that a large number of the implicated schools did not meet their targets during the period in question? This is particularly important to understand since school staff knew exactly how much improvement was needed to meet targets.
A: Both the AJC’s reporting and the investigators’ report show that pressure and intimidation played a much larger role than financial awards to assure teachers and schools achieved the good test results required to make district goals, or “targets” and adequate yearly progress under federal rules. Educators weren’t just afraid they’d lose bonuses if their schools missed targets – they were afraid they’d lose their jobs. This was true for both principals and teachers. Also, teachers who didn’t raise scores were publicly humiliated in some schools. The target system is complex and schools needed to meet between 70 percent and 100 percent of targets. Each year a school cheated to gain higher scores, the targets became harder to reach, requiring even more cheating the following year. In many cases, it appears altered test papers did assure schools made AYP and a higher number of the district’s targets. The state investigators’ report focused on evidence, regardless of motivation.
Q: Since 1st and 2nd grade students and their teachers are exempted from the target/bonus process, and the data indicate that these young students had about as many erasures as the older students, what would the motivation of these teachers be to cheat?
A: The AJC can’t speak to motivation in specific cases. The newspaper sought to report a factual representation of what happened and the state investigation, too, focused on evidence of cheating, regardless of motivation. We do know that a big jump in performance from one year to the next – for instance, if a large number of students failed as second graders but performed astoundingly as third graders – would likely draw unwanted attention.
Q: Why can't APS just fire employees implicated by the scandal and start fresh?
A: A state report released July 5 by Gov. Nathan Deal named 178 educators, including 38 principals, as participants in cheating, including erasing and correcting mistakes on students' answer sheets. It also said some of the district's top staff, including former Superintendent Beverly Hall, either knew or should have known that cheating or other misconduct was occurring. In its aftermath, interim Superintendent Erroll Davis said educators found to have cheated "are not going to be put in front of children again." However, he also estimated it would take four to six months to sort out personnel issues. That's because employees have contractual and legal rights to due process. According to state law, when a district moves to suspend or fire a teacher, principal, or other employee having a contract for a definite term, they are entitled to a hearing to defend themselves. Depending on the outcome of the hearing, they may also make an appeal to the state.
Q: How many students are affected by the scandal, and what's being done to help them?
A: More than 5,400 students received additional tutoring and after-school programing last school year while the investigation was under way. Investigators initially concentrated on state tests given in 2009 because that was the year for which the state conducted an erasure analysis and audit. However, they found testing concerns that in some instances go back a decade. With that in mind, the district is conducting academic reviews of student records as it seeks to identify additional students based on the report. Every student it identifies as needing additional academic help will get it. "My sense is these programs will take on a permanent nature, " Davis said.
Q: What will happen to teachers that will be found innocent in the report?
A: Teachers have contractual and legal rights to due process. State law requires a district to tell a teacher why action is being taken and gives teachers a right to defending themselves at a hearing. If a teacher is cleared, the school board can reinstate them to their job.
Q: Will lawsuits arise behind investigators naming people guilty without due process and privacy concerns?
A: It is certainly possible. Last week, three teachers from Finch Elementary issued a statement through their attorney denouncing the report's assertion that they changed test answers and vowing to fight to "clear our names." Separately, Atlanta defense attorney Bruce Harvey, who represents six APS educators, has criticized investigators for disclosing the names of those who exercised their Fifth Amendment rights.
About the Author
