No, not very well and here is part of the reason why. Surely there is a way to prevent this:

Cheating scandal: Feds say teachers hired stand-in to take their certification tests
By Adrian Sainz, The Associated Press

It was a brazen and surprisingly long-lived scheme, authorities said, to help aspiring public school teachers cheat on the tests they must pass to prove they are qualified to lead their classrooms.

For 15 years, teachers in three Southern states paid Clarence Mumford Sr. — himself a longtime educator — to send someone else to take the tests in their place, authorities said. Each time, Mumford received a fee of between $1,500 and $3,000 to send one of his test ringers with fake identification to the Praxis exam. In return, his customers got a passing grade and began their careers as cheaters, according to federal prosecutors in Memphis.

Authorities say the scheme affected hundreds — if not thousands — of public school students who ended up being taught by unqualified instructors.
Mumford faces more than 60 fraud and conspiracy charges that claim he created fake driver's licenses with the information of a teacher or an aspiring teacher and attached the photograph of a test-taker. Prospective teachers are accused of giving Mumford their Social Security numbers for him to make the fake identities.

The hired-test takers went to testing centers, showed the proctor the fake license, and passed the certification exam, prosecutors say. Then, the aspiring teacher used the test score to secure a job with a public school district, the indictment alleges. Fourteen people have been charged with mail and Social Security fraud, and four people have pleaded guilty to charges associated with the scheme.

Mumford "obtained tens of thousands of dollars" during the alleged conspiracy, which prosecutors say lasted from 1995 to 2010 in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.

Among those charged is former University of Tennessee and NFL wide receiver Cedrick Wilson, who is accused of employing a test-taker for a Praxis physical education exam. He was charged in late October with four counts of Social Security and mail fraud. He has pleaded not guilty and is out of jail on a $10,000 bond. He has been suspended by the Memphis City Schools system.
If convicted, Mumford could face between two and 20 years in prison on each count. The teachers face between two and 20 years in prison on each count if convicted.

Lawyers for Mumford and Wilson did not return calls for comment.

Prosecutors and standardized test experts say students were hurt the most by the scheme because they were being taught by unqualified teachers. It also sheds some light on the nature of cheating and the lengths people go to in order to get ahead.

"As technology keeps advancing, there are more and more ways to cheat on tests of this kind," said Neal Kingston, director of the Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation at the University of Kansas. "There's a never-ending war between those who try to maintain standards and those who are looking out for their own interests."

Cheating on standardized tests is not new, and it can be as simple as looking at the other person's test sheet. The Internet and cell phones have made it easier for students to cheat in a variety of ways. In the past few years, investigations into cheating on standardized tests for K-12 students have surfaced in Atlanta, New York and El Paso, Texas.

Still, most of the recent test-taking scandals involved students taking tests, not people taking teacher certification exams. Cheating scams involving teacher certification tests are more unusual, said Robert Schaeffer, public education director for the National Center for Fair & Open Testing.

Schaeffer notes that a large-scale scandal involving teacher certification tests was discovered in 2000, also in the South. In that case, 52 teachers were charged with paying up to $1,000 apiece to a former Educational Testing Services proctor to ensure a passing grade on teacher certification tests.

Teachers from Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee and Mississippi took tests through Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark., in 1998. The college was not accused of wrongdoing.

Educational Testing Services also writes and administers the Praxis examinations involved in the Memphis case. ETS spokesman Tom Ewing said the company discovered the cheating in June 2009, conducted an investigation and canceled scores. The company began meeting with authorities to turn over the information in late 2009, Ewing said.

"These cases are rare, but we consider them to be very serious and something we have to guard against happening for all the honest test-takers, students and teachers," Ewing said.

Ewing said ETS observes test-takers and reviews test scores to try to root out cheaters. ETS also has received anonymous tips that have led them to cheaters, Ewing said.

Prosecutors in the Mumford case say he, the teachers and test-takers used the Internet and the U.S. Postal Service to register and pay for the tests, and to receive payment. The indictment does not say how much he allegedly paid the test-takers.

An experienced educator, Mumford was working for Memphis City Schools when the alleged scam took place. Authorities say Mumford defrauded the three states by making the fake driver's licenses.

"What happens at many testing centers is that a whole bunch of test-takers show up simultaneously, early on a Saturday morning, and the proctors give only a cursory look to the identification," Schaeffer said. "It's not like going through airport security where a guy holds up a magnifying glass and puts our license under ultraviolet light to make sure it has not been tampered with."

Mumford was fired after news of the investigation came out, and others, like Wilson, have been suspended. But at least three teachers implicated in the scandal remain employed with their school district.

Kingston, the university professor, said prospective teachers may not be confident in their knowledge base to pass the test. Or, the cheaters may believe they are smart enough to pass on their own but also know they are poor test takers.

Kingston said his research has shown that cheating on exams is getting more prevalent.

"The propensity to cheat on exams both through college and for licensure and certification exams seems to be increasing over time," said Kingston. "People often don't see it as something wrong."

The pressure of passing the test could make people do things they normally would not do. And it could take a while for authorities and test-taking services to catch up with the cheaters.

"When people come up with a new method for cheating, it takes some time for folks to figure it out, partly because this has been an understudied area in the field of assessment," Kingston said.

Nina Monfredo, a 23-year-old history teacher at Power Center Academy in Memphis, has taken Praxis exams for history, geography, middle school content, and secondary teaching and learning.

Monfredo, who passed all her tests and is not involved in the fraud case, said the exams she took were relatively easy for someone who has a high school education. She said some people use study aids to prepare, but she didn't. And she didn't feel much pressure because it was her understanding that she could take the test again if she did not pass.

"If you feel like you can't pass and you hire someone it means you really didn't know what you were doing," she said. "I think it would be easier to just learn what's on the test."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11 ... snhp&pos=5

I took Math Praxis II maybe 10 years ago. I got a good grade. I told Hubby if I'd taken it the day I graduated from HS I'd have gotten a great grade. I'd forgotten logarithms and some of the pre-calc stuff by the time I took the test.

Subject matter Praxis II is not very hard.

We're not asked to take a test to recertify. We go through a formal inspection process by our supervisors every couple of years, as does the school. It's very hands on, the people visit the classrooms, talk to the kids, look at the materials we're using, and at students work.

I personally think standardized tests are one of the least useful assessment pieces available, whether it's the students or the teachers being tested.

I personally think standardized tests are one of the least useful assessment pieces available, whether it's the students or the teachers being tested.

I have never really understood that argument, especially with subjects that are fact based. It seems to me that standardized tests are a good way of ensuring students are learning math, science or even grammar to the expected level. One of the problems I see on a regular basis is people who supposedly have supposedly graduated from highschool or even college but are truly illiterate.

I think standardized testing for a teacher is a different subject than for children.
Teachers have graduated University and should be well versed in taking tests of all kinds. To pass a HS level test after shouldn't be a problem. They are, after all, adults.

I've known a few "teachers" working at banks who couldn't even spell properly. They would moan about not being able to find teaching positions as I thought "Thank goodness!"

This isn't about already hired teachers taking the exam or being evaluated, it's about their first exam to qualify for their first position:

"Then, the aspiring teacher used the test score to secure a job with a public school district, the indictment alleges."

I went to take my Praxis with a younger woman from my Teacher Ed program. She had told me all along she knew a guy who flunked the Praxis five times, She chuckled when she saw that he was taking the exam for the sixth time with us.

This test is easy.

X+2=5 What is x?

It is a gateway to filter out people who absolutely should not be teaching because they are not remotely subject matter experts. I am not against this.

What ever happened to integrity?

This is going to sound.....argh. Arrogant. But most people untrained in education don't understand the case against standardized tests. But bear with me.

The most important thing to consider when deciding to implement some form of assessment (any form, including tests) is to make sure it tests what you want it to test. That sounds straightforward, but it isn't. You have to specifically target the skills you want to see the testee perform, and make sure your test tests those and as much as possible, only those.

So take the case of standardized tests. Because they are taken by so many people at once, they have to be quick to implement and easy to mark. So they are paper and pencil tests, almost always true false or multiple choice. They involve a lot of reading. So what? you might say, our kids need to read. Ok, fair enough. But do they need to fail every subject because they can't read? Should a child fail math because they can't read? Or possibly, for a reason as simple as they need glasses? What about a kid who's fine motor control is poor enough, or he's just sloppy enough that he can't get the little black circles in the right spots on the page?

So those are the barriers to the kids taking the tests. (Well, it's a very limited list of them anyway.) What about the things that children bring to the table that these tests don't give them credit for? Think of it this way. Do we want kids to graduate school with good working interpersonal skills? Because standardized tests don't test for that. Problem solving? No way. The ability to recognize and use diverse materials to produce something? Sorry, no test for that. Charisma, presentation skills? Forget it. Leadership, debating skills? Sorry, no.

The only things that standardized tests test for well is the ability to take standardized tests. And yes, there are specific skills involved in being successful on those tests. More and more classrooms are demonstrating instruction in just those skills. Manipulatives? Back to the bin. We have to do all our math with pencil and paper, because the test is coming. Debating in language class? Sorry, it's grammar time, here comes the test. Not only that, but we will now have specific time in the curriculum carved out to teach how to fill out the stupid test papers, "c or the longest answer", and all that jazz.

Personally, given the shift in education that seems to follow these tests, I think they're one of the worst things to happen in education in a long time.

As for teachers....

I would argue similar arguments. What is it specifically you want to test us on? Presentation? Ability to bond with children? Knowlege of child development, learning styles, disabilities, assessment practices, understanding of diversity, bullying prevention? even subject material?

do you really think some stupid true false test somewhere is going to show you who is and is not a good teacher?

And if you have teachers flunking basic literacy tests, your system has problems a lot bigger than one of these simplistic bandaids is going to fix.

The brightest and most creative thinkers have great difficulty with standardized tests. They tend to be able to envision scenarios where none of the provided answers are totally true. It seems simple to say pick the closest one, but when something is not exactly true how does one choose which non truth is the closest to truth?

Okay, here's my response to you:

They involve a lot of reading. So what? you might say, our kids need to read. Ok, fair enough. But do they need to fail every subject because they can't read? Should a child fail math because they can't read[/i]

Yes to both questions. If, by age ten, (the earliest I've heard of standardized testing) a kid can't read he needs to be identified and his problem sorted out one way or another. What are you going to do, keep pushing him through school because he's got some mediocre basket weaving skills? That is not going to help him when the real world shows up and smacks him in the face. If he can't read or do at least basic math he's useless to employers so he spends the rest of his life on welfare, in jail or in some other sort of grinding poverty because nobody bothered to make sure he acquired the basic skills he needs to survive in the outside world.

Or possibly, for a reason as simple as they need glasses?

If that's the reason, great. He fails the test. Somebody looks and says "why" and maybe he gets glasses.

What about a kid who's fine motor control is poor enough, or he's just sloppy enough that he can't get the little black circles in the right spots on the page?

Same answer as above. Is he just a slow developer? Is there a health problem? Is it a behaviour problem? Shuffling up into the next grade isn't going to resolve that.

Think of it this way. Do we want kids to graduate school with good working interpersonal skills? Because standardized tests don't test for that. Problem solving? No way. The ability to recognize and use diverse materials to produce something? Sorry, no test for that. Charisma, presentation skills? Forget it. Leadership, debating skills? Sorry, no.

Not everything can be tested for. But, by the same token, all the problem solving skills, charisma and presentation skills in the world aren't going to help a kid if he can't read, write or do basic arithmetic.

Debating in language class? Sorry, it's grammar time, here comes the test.

No reason why they can debate in language class. Maybe some of the debating could be in written form so that the kid learns how to communicate his arguments in an understandable manner.

As for teachers....

I could go on about this being the only reason teacher's unions are against standardized testing but I won't because (shudder/shake) I almost agree with them. The reason for the tests should be two-fold:

1. To find out if the children are achieving the standards expected for that age and grade level. If, on an individual level, they are not achieving it then the resons can be looked at.

2. If, on a group level, too many are failing or passing then maybe there is a problem with the curriculum.

Because every student has their own capability and, except in special cases, kids are randomly assigned to classes the fact that one teacher's class does miserably in the tests doesn't reflect on his or her teaching skills anymore than a teacher's class excelling at the test makes that teacher a great teacher. If, however, year after year, an individual teacher's students fail to meet the standards while other teachers students do pass then the problem may lie with the teacher.

All good points, jim, except that there isn't sufficient funding to do all that stuff yet the DOEs and school boards order the teachers to do it all anyway. That way they look good to voters and blame the teachers when it doesn't work.

oskar576 wrote:

All good points, jim, except that there isn't sufficient funding to do all that stuff yet the DOEs and school boards order the teachers to do it all anyway. That way they look good to voters and blame the teachers when it doesn't work.

So the solution is to keep shoving the students up and up and finally out of the school board's hair?

That's what the powers-that-be are doing and we keep right on re-electing them... the few who even bother voting, that is.

None of this is about testing the kids it's about testing the teacher pool.

There are many, many more teaching candidates than positions for new teachers. The PRAXIS II is a shockingly easy subject matter test. This isn't about creativity or tracking kids. This is a certification that the people applying for teaching jobs have enough subject matter competence to be teaching that subject.

I am not as against standardized for students as others are either. The High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) in NJ is also shockingly simple. If you cannot pass this(or one of the alternate assessments ) you cannot graduate. They give it in junior year and you have senior year to retake or take Special Review Assessment classes to demonstrate you can do the work. I think I worked in SRA classes when I was interning Ed Psych. There is also an Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA) which is a portfolio-based assessment method used to measure academic progress for students with severe disabilities who are unable to participate in the standardized assessment tests. The APA is given to a student in each content area where the student's disability is so severe that the student is not receiving instruction in the skill being measured and the student cannot complete any of the types of questions on the assessment in a content area even with appropriate changes and accommodations.

I am not of the belief education is the same as serving time. People should have some proficiency in order to merit a diploma.

You make some good points gat. As I said, standardized testing of students is a different subject.

And if you have teachers flunking basic literacy tests, your system has problems a lot bigger than one of these simplistic bandaids is going to fix.

Bingo! That's is what the test is for. Could be that these same teachers were ones who were shoved through their elementary and HS education without having learned the basics, managed to bluff their way through university or never learned how to take tests. Thus, they are paying someone to take the test for them. Could also be that they had others take exams for them in university..................Happens all the time. I personally knew 4 people who had someone take their SAT's for them.

Let me ask you: Should they also do away with the standardized tests for the legal profession aka the "Bar"? What about doctors who must take the MCAT to get into medical school, the USMLE to get their license and a Board exam in their specialty? All standardized tests.

There must be a way to make sure that unqualified people do not attain professional status in any field. There is not enough funding, time or personnel to individually evaluate each candidate so standardized testing is the best we have at this point.

I think i want to answer both you and jim, but to preserve the integrity of the thread, I'll start a new one to discuss the standardized testing of kids, how's that?

I guess the big difference between the certification of teachers and the certification of doctors and lawyers is that teachers have to be HIRED. So really, the vetting process is the same as it is for anyone else that gets hired for a job--if you suck, you don't get the job. And sure, someone has to give them that first job, so that they can get experience, but that first job is almost always supply teaching, so the worst they can screw up is one day of some kid's lives. Candidly, the screw up supply teachers that i have seen have almost always messed up on things that would not show up on a written test--things like the inability to manage a crowd of children, or hold their temper, or manage time. (and think about the kinds of things that your friends complain about their kids teachers--are they learning or personality based? when people complain about their kids experiences in school, is it because the teachers were bad with the curriculum, or bad with the kids?)

The hiring process here is stringent. There is huge demand for jobs and lots of new teachers that want them. The interview process is complicated and competitive. There is both strict hiring criteria that is laid out specifically (a teacher much have such and such qualification, have recommendations from a minimum amount of principals that have observed their work directly, have a portfolio of unit, lesson and assessment planning, as well as a written statement of their philosophy of teaching) and strong market regulation, just from the amount of competition out there.

New teachers also have to have passed teacher's college itself, which is now a two year post grad degree that includes months of on the job practicum training under experienced and valued hand picked teachers. It also involves written exams on a number of subjects. And that was before you consider the fact that most were A students to begin with or they wouldn't have been accepted to the teacher's college. (this is an Ontario experience. I don't know if it varies.)

I'm not dead set against writing whatever test it is you're talking about. Truth is, I'm one of the lucky few that test well in all occaisions, which is why i did well in school to begin with. (my spelling and typing skills on message boards not withstanding.) But you have to realize that it's not revenue neutral. Is this REALLY a good expenditure of cash, given what else the system has been doing without lately? Things like, lower class sizes, special ed., gym equipment, art, music,even in some cases safe buildings?

It seems very redundant to me. I have to go through a testing process every 5 years that involves submitting lesson plans, unit plans, and assessment pieces, two interviews (before and after) and having my teaching watched on spec. New teachers have to do it two years in a row the first two years they teach. Not to mention the kind of scrutiny that long term supply teachers (who fill in for illnesses or pregnancy leaves--the springboards for most full time jobs) go through constantly.

They go through all that, and then two thirds of them quit in the first five years. It turns out that the teachers they attract and who pass through the stringent hiring processes end up being the kind of people that can make way more money with way less hassle other places. (that was pre-recession numbers, but still).

The problem the profession has always had isn't finding good people. It's KEEPING them.

I guess the big difference between the certification of teachers and the certification of doctors and lawyers is that teachers have to be HIRED.

Doctors and lawyers have to be hired too, unless they have mega $$$ to open a private practice. That's not as easy today as it once was with the cost of liability insurance and such, and with paying off student loans. Most doctors start out being hired into a professional group, making some money with that and maybe some ER shifts (if they don't part time at other types of jobs), and then opening their own practice. Lawyers need the backing of a group until they can build a client base.

greeny, is the stringent hiring process you describe for all grade levels? ~ iow, elementary thru high school?

Sooz

MY post is gone, OMG!!!! I am not typing it again.

It described my experience in education training in US and hiring and yada yada.

BTW, to work in SW in all branches of the field you need the appropriate licensure which is dependent on standardized testing. We are hired, too.

Given that I spent my whole working life at a major law firm, I have a LOT of experience with baby lawyers~ I can't speak for docs but you're right on the mark, roseanne, in saying "Lawyers need the backing of a group until they can build a client base." ~ but it goes much further than that ~ baby lawyers need the mentoring of more experienced lawyers before going out on their own, along with the salaries ~ if I had to pick just one comment that is virtually universal from every 1st year associate, it would be "practicing law is VERY different from law school" ~ the second comment would likely be "oh shit" about something ~

Sooz

I ASSUME so. I don't have any first hand experience with anything over the elementary level. Me being a friendly neighborhood grade one teacher and all.

btw, is PAXIS a private company? Are you sure that they're contributing anything but a way to line their own pockets?

imo, any teacher test that can be overridden by paying some one to take it for you is not really worth the paper it's printed on.

Sorry to hear both that your "post is gone" and that you're "not typing it again", Kath ~ I strongly encourage everyone to copy their own posts before clicking "submit" until the current system hiccups are resolved ~

Sooz

Of course. I would liken your field to the medical profession. It is a part of overall health. Even realtors have to be licensed by testing and they are also hired. I guess that applies to many, many fields now that I think about it.

I am recertified every 5 years. It just isn't a written exam that does it, it's a much more involved process, that imo, does a much better job of testing the skills that successful teachers have to have than a written exam would.

It's not the same thing, gat.

PRAXIS 2 is do you know enough math to teach math before you can be certified to teach math? Any recertification is much more about teaching skills.