The news reports of an SAT cheating ring in New York in late 2011 further ignited the never-ending debate about how cheating should be dealt with in education, especially in higher education. The standard operating procedure each time an issue occurs is to blame educators and/or educational institutions (e.g., universities or in this case, the College Board which administers the SAT).
Universities, in turn, are able to place a small amount of the responsibility on the students themselves. Most schools have academic integrity policies; Central Michigan University provides a good example. To generalize a bit: Often the first offense is seen as a teachable moment, a chance for faculty or administration to make sure the student fully understands the right and wrong of cheating. The second offense usually includes a slight penalty, a failing grade or zero on an assignment or test. The third offense may be failing a course or withdrawal from the university. The problem is that even a student who blatantly cheats and gets kicked out of school can go to the next university and start over. They may even get away with cheating there as there is no central system in place to track habitual cheaters.
Finally, there is the issue of those I like to call “grifters,” people who are not students but who make money by helping current students cheat. Clearly, universities have no recourse against those not attending their institutions. Grifters also often operate covertly or online, so they are difficult to catch. This also makes it nearly impossible for law enforcement to apprehend them. A major difficulty is that frequently there aren’t even laws to cover cheating. The assumption is that the academic integrity policies intended to stem the tide of cheating as outlined above have not succeeded, so the question needs to be asked: Are we placing the onus on the wrong group? Should the burden be placed more squarely upon the cheaters? One lawmaker seems to think so. On January 24, 2012, Senator Kenneth Lavalle took action by proposing a bill that not only provides for preventive measures like requiring positive identification at testing centers, but that also makes cheating on SAT tests a felony. Is this the right direction?
A Look at the Proposed Measure
A full list of activities related to this issue is available on the Senator’s website. According to the Boston Globe, here’s what Senator Lavelle is proposing:
• “Two new felonies for facilitation of education testing fraud and of scheming to defraud educational testing”
• One new misdemeanor for forgery on a test
• Increased security, especially with personal identification (e.g., photo ID, fingerprinting, and retinal scans) (Gormley, 24 January 2012).
Certainly, these measures sound good, and everything that can be done to protect the integrity of the SAT tests should be done. LaValle believes that New York can lead the nation via this proposal, and he compares the urgency of this matter to the allegations of sexual abuse of children at Penn State University (Gormley, 24 January 2012).
A Look at the Need
In its response to this, the College Board’s spokesperson, Tom Rudin, senior vice president for advocacy, government relations and development, explained that the organization does everything it can to ensure the integrity of the tests, that the incidents are very rare, and that the authorities whose responsibility it is to enforce the laws typically only give a luke warm response when incidents do occur (Gormley, 24 January 2012).
Jason Koebler of U.S. News details this further: On average, 2,000 of 2.25 million exams annually are declared invalid (5 October, 2011). This equals less than 1% each year. Koebler adds: “Usually, students are caught collaborating or skipping ahead on the test. But occasionally, more blatant cheating like that in Long Island is uncovered.” These students, whose tests are voided, are allowed to retake the test free of charge. Koebler also explains that the College Board does not make accusations of cheating.
If over 99% of the SAT tests taken annually worldwide appear to have been completed with integrity, there really isn’t much of a need for new laws and intensified criminal prosecution. Perhaps this explains why educational entities like universities and the College Board use these incidents as teachable moments and why failing grades and voided tests are the typical first time offense punishment. Maybe this explains the less than enthusiastic reaction of law enforcement. Is this really akin, as LaValle says, to child abuse?
A Look at the Causes…
Perhaps by means of these shared sources the real causes for this commotion over SAT cheating becomes apparent. First, it’s not unusual for politicians to attempt to build a reputation for themselves by attacking education and its practices. They often play on public fears, turning molehills into mountains—or dare I say >1% cheating into the equivalent of child sexual abuse scandals. LaValle makes this analogy by saying: “I would say to you that we’re in a new era. It happened at Penn State and happened at Syracuse, there are new rules … and if we need to use legislation to spell that out more clearly, we’ll do that” (Gormley, 24 January 2012). It? Which issue is being referred to here? Before LaValle and company in New York influence the nation on policy, it would perhaps be helpful to get clear on “it.”
Second, Koebler refers to the 2004 film, The Perfect Score, which tells the fictional story of six students who break into an SAT testing center to steal answers to the test. As I discussed in my post yesterday, ( “Bad Teacher or Bad Media?”), two-thirds of the audience for a film like this believe that the subject matter is true. This seems to be a contributing factor in terms of how cheating is as more rampant by the general public than it is in reality.
Third, with the vague pronoun references like “it,” media’s hold on the public psyche, and a public forum from which to stir up a frenzy in difficult economic times, it’s easy to create a stir that is largely unnecessary.
…and the Effects
The results of this over enthusiastic attack on the College Board and the SAT test are easily seen. Time, energy, and money—taxpayer funds in part—will be wasted. This money could more effectively be directed to something like financial aid for the 99+% of students who seem to be taking the test honestly.
Likewise and equally difficult to measure is the effect on students when we continue to treat all of them like criminals for simply wanting to take the required test to pursue higher education. I know how I would feel if forced to have a retinal scan to take the SAT. As an educator, I also question if this is modeling appropriate behavior for students. Do we want them to adopt these over-reaching, posturing tactics that seem to border on paranoia?
The intent of Senator LaValle and the College Board are honorable in that we must protect the integrity of education. However, let’s reign in the enthusiasm.
Image source: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=2522
Leave Comments