Teachers in Cobb County School District and other GA schools are required to administer SLOs (Student Learning Objectives) to their students enrolled in non-EOC (End of Course) classes. Over the past several years the criteria and types of testing has changed several times, and the new test rollouts have not been without problems. The first year the EOCs as well as the SLOs rolled out, there were so many problems that the EOC did not count, and the SLOs only counted if they helped the students.
The EOC now counts for 20% of GA high school students grade in certain courses in math, English, science, and history. The SLOs count as a grade at the teacher’s discretion. Both tests are used as means of evaluating, not just student achievement, but teacher performance.
However, it seems that if students score too high, the teacher as well as the students are suspect for cheating. Since the APS test scandal of a few years ago, teachers in all GA schools are under close scrutiny. However, while the EOC is recognized as a standardized test that absolutely counts toward the students’ course grade, the SLO is a test that students typically do not take very seriously, and most teachers do consider a waste of time. This year, I, a teacher of 14 years who has always taught EOC courses (formerly known as EOCT), and have had a reputation for the highest scores, and fewest failures of on-level English teachers several years in a row, am now under investigation because my senior students, mostly Black and Hispanic scored very well on the SLO, a test that does not count for grades, only for teacher performance.
The day after the test was administered, my Black and Hispanic students were called out of classes to speak to individuals who claimed to be the creators of the SLO tests. They told the students they were selecting students and teachers at random to discuss the administration of the test, and to see if there was room for improvement. However, it was not lost on my students that their questions largely focused on how I administered the test. The students were asked several questions, that when the interviewers did not receive the desired response would rephrase the questions. The students were very upset by this and two students believe they were recorded without having granted permission.
When several students told me about this in class the day after the test, I was not unduly concerned as I was aware of the past tests and how very badly written they were. However, that afternoon I received an email from the testing administrator indicating there were “concerns” over the amount of time spent on the test, which was roughly from 12:10 to 12:52, 42 minutes, with the exception of some special education and ESOL students who needed additional time. The test administration time is 45 minutes. The other concern was that the students had logged in and out of the testing application several times. Later in the week following this email, this same administrator sent an email out from district technology letting teachers know there were issues with some of the testing devices, laptops and tablets. I had used tablets.
I addressed each of these issues from the administrator with logical explanations and felt that was it. However two days later I was told an investigator from the district would be on campus to question me regarding the test. On that day, I arrived at the front office of the school at the designated time with the printed scores as well as the class performance breakdown of all my students, which were commensurate with the grades.
The investigator spent several minutes asking me questions that were designed to elicit responses that would implicate me, and fabricating a story about how students “reported” I had held them in class until they finished the test, causing the testing time to go beyond the 45 allowed minutes. I listened and did not respond.
The investigator also stated that the students told him that I ordered them to log on and off, so they could see their scores and then to log back on and finish the test. This was an absolute fabrication, not on the part of my students, but on his part. I, in fact, told my students they should check with me prior to logging out, as I could allow them to know if they had reached a target score I had set of 80%. This was reasonable as 85% of the students in this team taught class have a B or above.
I listened, and answered questions honestly. He in no uncertain terms let me know he felt I was lying, as “these scores were the highest scores of any students in similar courses in the district on this test.”
I told the investigator I was aware of my students being pulled out, that I was aware of the subterfuge, and I was aware that the reason I was being questioned was they could not believe that Black and Hispanic students in a team taught class could score so well on a test.
I informed the investigator that this was racism and that my students performed so well because I told them I would expect nothing less than the best they could deliver. During the interview my principal sat silent. She did not defend me, nor did she defend my students. The investigator was condescending and smirked at each remark I made regarding the brightness and abilities of my students.
The investigator told me that the cited actions were a violation of testing protocol and that I was to receive a disciplinary action.
My lawyers are on it… and I am in the undesirable position of wondering if I will have a job come January, as next week I will meet again with the investigator for a discipline meeting. I am not certain if this was already planned, or a knee jerk reaction on his part when I stated that the motivation behind the line of questioning was racism.
After the nightmare interview, upon reading the manuals for the test I found I had in no way violated testing protocol. According to the testing manual and best practices for administration: 1) Students are allowed to log off and back in. 2) If a student’s scores are not consistent with what the teacher feels is his or her ability, the teacher is to encourage the student to log off and back in to complete the test, and 3) Teachers are allowed to prove extra time for those students with accommodations.
I stand firm in that the entire investigation occurred for two reasons 1) Because this principal recently wrote a Letter of Direction citing me for “refusing to teach the bible as fact” , this would not “stick” and 2) Because there was a legitimate disbelief on their parts that “subgroup” students could outperform other students on the same test in the district.