Today, Judge Jerry Baxter ended the trial of 10 teachers and school administrators charged in the Atlanta Cheating Scandal. Well, not quite. Eight teachers maintain the right to appeal Baxter’s sentences and fines, which could extend judicial proceedings for several more years. These eight former school district employees received harsher sentences–as many as seven years in state prison and fines of $25,000—than if they would 
have accepted responsibility for their actions and attempted cover-up.
Watching the trial streamed online by WXIA provided viewers with insights about real court proceedings. Judge Jerry is not Judge Judy. Baxter’s focus was singular: weighing potential penalties based upon the damage he perceived students received from crediting children with knowledge and skills not learned but who nevertheless falsely received high scores on state tests and promotion to a higher grade.
No Child Left Behind (2002) required each state adopt and administer annual tests to students in Grade 3–8 attending public schools. Some states adopted difficult tests, and some states (e.g., Georgia) adopted easy tests. The only standardized (fixed) aspect of the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests was its administration. Procedures adopted for teachers to follow were the same for each teacher when administering the CRCT.
Columnist Gloria Romero, Atlanta District Attorney Paul Howard, and many reporters incorrectly reported that students’ scores were changed on standardized tests. Georgia’s state test at the time, the CRCT, was not a standardized test. It measured students’ mastery of Georgia’s curricula standards adopted by the state’d Department of Education for reading, English-language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Scores on the CRCT could be validly compared among students, classes, schools, and school systems—but only among individuals and groups in Georgia. School curricula in Georgia, and in other states, were unique, as were state tests.
Howard, charged these former Atlanta teachers and administrators with racketeering, violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO violations usually refer to an act or threat related to arson, bribery, extortion, gambling, kidnapping, murder, robbery, producing or selling pornography, or selling illegal drugs. To this list of activities Howard added changing wrong answers to right answers on a reading or math test.
It is said that a skilled district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. Howard seems capable of successfully indicting a pig for obesity. But did Howard overreach and overcharge these teachers and school administrators? Does imprisoning eight former school district employees for as many as seven years and fining them as much as $25,000 fit the reasons for convictions? Or did Judge Baxter decide to teach an object lesson to warn other educators that school cheaters on tests will receive harsh punishment?
I recall the school superintendent in Orange County whose district received addition state dollars because of higher test scores. He ensured that low-achieving juniors in high school with poor grades and who previously scored poorly on California tests were not “eligible” to take the state test by not classifying them as seniors the following year. This fact was evident in the district’s report in year “X” that included “X” juniors, but the following year reported several hundred fewer seniors reported as juniors the previous year. Test scores for seniors soared, and the district received thousands of additional state dollars.
Which action is the more dishonest? Changing wrong answers to right answers in Atlanta? Or acting unethically to prevent low-scoring students from taking the state test in Orange County to receive extra state funding based upon gerrymandered test scores? If this superintendent were charged and convicted in Judge Baxter’s court, what would this judge’s ruling have been?
The Atlanta sentences are disturbing, not only because of their harshness, but because of the potential for even further overreaching by aggressive district attorneys. For example, students in many California public schools are coached for many hours each year for the single purpose of their scoring higher on state tests. Moreover, students complete practice tests throughout the school year. Students in the norming group upon which the meaning of standardized test scores are established do not receive any special coaching or test-taking practice. Are these practices cheating? Would a California district attorney ever apply RICO to charge teachers and principals with cheating who coach students test-taking strategies excessively and administer practice tests regularly?
