What Standards?Author(s): Randy MooreSource: The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 64, No. 7 (Sep., 2002), pp. 483+485-486Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Association of BiologyTeachersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451350 .

Accessed: 09/07/2014 19:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

University of California Press and National Association of Biology Teachers are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The American Biology Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 2.104.160.178 on Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:37:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wh1at Standards?

S tandards-based reform has driven public K-12 education

in the United States for the past decade. Although the popularity among teachers of this latest "one-size-fits-all" reform of educa- tion has dropped significantly since 1999 (Olson, 2002), its popularity remains high among most politicians and administra- tors. However, several recent events have shown that many of the most important problems that continue to plague education are due, in fact, to a shocking lack of standards. I could cite many examples to make this point, but two are especially revealing.

Making Learning Optional

In Massachusetts, high school students must pass a state assess- ment (i.e., the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System; MCAS) before they can get a diploma. The law specifying this requirement, which was passed nine years ago amid claims by educators that they had "made the tough choices," "raised standards," and were going to "demand the best of students," went into effect in 2002. The law is easily understood: "In order to receive a diploma and graduate from a Massachusetts public high school, students must meet all the local requirements and pass MCAS."

The trouble began when stu- dents in several schools (includ- ing one located near Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology) realized earlier this year that they had not satisfied all of the requirements specified by the state standards. Rather than work harder and "meet the standards," the stu- dents and their parents dedared themselves victims and con- vinced their school boards to ignore the requirement. One school board told its superin- tendent to grant diplomas to "all students who meet the require- ments for graduation regardless of her or his MCAS test scores" (Gehring, 2002). Numerous other schools have made similar decisions.' The whining parents and students convinced the administrators - that is, the same administrators who had earlier proclaimed that the MCAS requirement would improve learning, "make students and teachers accountable," and "bring out the best in everyone" - to simply ignore the law. What was originally meant to raise stan- dards and improve learning has now been used to teach students that it's easier to whine, com- plain, and lower one's standards than it is to work hard, learn, and accomplish goals. The false self-esteem produced by lowered standards has triumphed again over learning, dedication, and

the personal rewards obtained by accomplishing a goal.

In other states, the disregard for learning and accountability are sometimes even more shock- ing. For example, Minnesota stu- dents must complete the Profile of Learning, a program designed to raise academic standards by making students demonstrate their knowledge, often by per- forming practical tasks, doing projects, or involving themselves in community work. When this requirement was established more than 10 years ago, schools throughout the state were instructed (and given accompa- nying resources) to prepare for its implementation, which would begin this year. Although the schools applauded the standards and accepted the accompanying money for their implementation, they complained when they actu- ally had to show results. For example, in one large school dis- trict in which two-thirds of the class of 2002 were lagging in their work, the school district

'Other schools have, among other things, given diplomas to all stu- dents regardless of the students' test scores, given diplomas to students who have refused to participate in "mandatory" state assessment pro- grams, and given diplomas to failing students in exchange for the stu- dents' parents agreeing not to sue the school for failing their children.

0

H-

p-

EDITORIAL 483

This content downloaded from 2.104.160.178 on Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:37:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

didn't demand that students demonstrate the knowledge speci- fied by the standards. Instead, the students who hadn't completed the profile were simply exempted from doing so. Presto! Instant graduates! Other Minnesota high schools low- ered the standards by as much as almost 95%, and even other schools made learning entirely optional by exempting all seniors from having to meet any of the standards of the Profile (Draper, 2002). It's no won- der that the public has such little confidence in public schools, that record numbers of high school grad- uates are academically unprepared for college, and that many high schools are "pathways to nowhere" (e.g., Wear, 2002).

Encouraging Cheating Christina Pelton taught high

school biology last year in Piper, Kansas. Like many biology teachers, Pelton required her students to write term papers describing their work (Pelton's students wrote about their studies of leaves that they'd collected). Pelton went to great lengths to describe the importance of the paper and the consequences of plagiarism. For example, Pelton used dass time and her syllabus to discuss plagiarism and the impor- tance of properly citing others' ideas, and warned students that they'd receive no credit for their paper if they committed plagiarism. To ensure that her standards for honesty and integrity were clearly understood, Pelton had students and their parents read and sign the syllabus.

When Pelton discovered that some of her students had commit- ted plagiarism, she showed her evi- dence to the school's superintend- ent and principal. Both of these administrators agreed that the stu- dents had committed plagiarism. Pelton then did what she said she'd do (and what the board-approved student handbook instructed her to do): she gave the cheating students

-~~~~~~~~~ S

Science educators know that microscopes can be powerful tools,

opening up invisible worlds to their students. In order to make the process of discovery a success, you need microscopes that deliver superior optical performance, that are safe and easy to use... microscopes guaranteed to be reliable in classrooms, labs, or outside fieldwork.

Swift makes the perfect choice. We have designed a microscope for every application and age group, from kindergarten through college. Each model is backed by an exclusive lifetime warranty* and our highly trained technicians. They're ready to keep each Swift microscope functioning perfectly. You'd be amazed at the "real oldies" that are sent in for a quick adjustment and returned for another decade of service.

Swift respects your commitment to science education, by providing microscopes and accessories that offer superior performance, more features and a greater warranty. Find out which Swift products are right for your students.

Swift Instruments, Inc.

>:~~TST

110Nrt t tre,Sa oe C 51 (80 2-54FX:1012276

ww.wimirsoecm

*Lftm wrat ovr l efcsi srmshp01mtras o h lf fte sroet tecuescvtg fsacdsto bs

- in~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EDTRA 8

This content downloaded from 2.104.160.178 on Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:37:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

no credit for the assignment.2 When students and their parents com- plained that it wasn't fair for Pelton to invoke such a penalty for cheat- ing, the school board called a closed-door meeting (in violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act) and instructed Pelton to raise the cheaters' grades by giving them credit for their plagiarized papers. Pelton refused, and resigned (for more information about this inci- dent, see Cheating in the Heartland, 2002; Teacher resigns, 2002).

Administrators often talk about "standards" and "integrity," but failed to back Pelton when she exenm- plified standards and integrity. The board's actions cheapened the work of students who didn't cheat and made a mockery of the school's claims that honesty, character, and doing your own work are important. The students cheated themselves, and their parents missed a valuable opportunity to teach their children

integrity and self-respect. Instead of commending Pelton for her integrity and telling their children about the importance of honesty and taking responsibility for one's actions, the parents betrayed their children by attacking the teacher. Students learned that rules don't apply to them, that they'll be rewarded if they whine about and blame others for their failures, that character and integrity don't count, and that cheat- ing does, in fact, pay.

How disgraceful.

Randy Moore Editor

References Cheating in the Heartland. 2002.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2002/05/31/48hours/main5 10 772.shtml.

Draper, N. (2002, May 26). Profile com- plicates graduation. Star-Tribune, pp. Al, A19.

Gehring,J. (2002, May 8). Vote to award diplomas defies state testing policy. Education Week, p. 3.

Olson, L. (2002, April 3). Study reveals grim prospects for racial achieve- ment gap. Education Week, p. 26.

Sorokin, E. (2002, April 10). Nationwide poll finds high schoolers cheating. The Washington Times, p. A4. Also available at www.washtimes.com/ national 20020410-31809644.htm.

Teacher resigns over plagiarism fight. 2002. http://cnn.comL2002/fyi teachers.ednews/02/07/plagia rism.dispute.a-i/.

Wear, B. (2002, March 6). High schools called "pathways to nowhere." Education Week, p. 16.

2According to a recent nationwide survey of 4500 high school students, 74% of high school students cheat on tests or home- work, and most of these cheaters aren't ashamed of their actions. More than half of the students surveyed didn't think that plagiarism, sharing test answers, or getting answers from someone who had taken a test was cheating (Sorokin, 2002).

C evic 5 e -959 1-800-558 s aq see ailck C

BioQuest olta

ry Oqy

etics e

d on 13i"Count"

sloo lo%

s3oo D,Iweq L""lo% s"00 L," 12% L" I

SI(OO FIT, 018

.*uP*IA . ..... to (ECDABElk 3

EFFECTWE Ttl"O'o

CM

our ssEc on ca 7

486 THEAMERICANBIOLOGYTEACHER,VOLUME64,NO.7,SEPTEMBER2002

This content downloaded from 2.104.160.178 on Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:37:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions