Cheating

The cheating scandal at Harvard which could involve as many as 125 students in a single class has gotten extensive publicity. And the impression given is that this is an unusual event. For example, as quoted in the New York Times, Harvard’s dean of undergraduate education noted that this cheating incident at Harvard “is unprecedented in its scope and magnitude.” This may be correct, given that it involves almost half of the class, but cheating and academic dishonesty are not unusual events and the “scope and magnitude” of what happens nationwide is certainly disturbing.

Mr. Harris, in the same New York Times article notes that “the enabling role of technology is a big part of the picture.” He continues by stating “It’s the ease of sharing. With that has come, I believe a certain cavalier attitude.” True enough but there are two other factors that I believe are an important part of this equation. First, and this was not the case at Harvard, faculty are often reluctant to bring cheating to the attention of their administration preferring instead to administer their own justice for incidents of academic dishonesty. This justice varies widely for the same infraction from faculty member to faculty member. I understand the faculty mentality and respect it, and I also understand the reluctance to follow a cookie cutter approach in determining penalties or grades. But what is lost in this approach is that repeat incidents of cheating need a stronger response but if an incident is not reported to administration, there is no way to ramp up the penalty for the next incident. As a faculty member, I might be lenient on a first infraction on the part of an undergraduate. I certainly wouldn’t be lenient regarding any infraction by a graduate student and I wouldn’t be lenient toward any repeat offense. We need to coordinate our efforts regarding academic dishonesty. Cheating is a nationwide problem. It will not disappear quickly and only a response that is both resolute and yet understanding of faculty prerogatives can work to moderate the problem.

Cheating doesn’t just start in college. It starts much earlier and is equally pervasive in much of middle and high school education. It actually starts earlier in elementary school and unfortunately parents may be playing an enabling role in the cheating that is going on. We all recognize that parents play a critical role in the education of their children and that teachers together with parents are key factors in the success of children. But where should parents draw the line in helping their kids. My wife and I both read to and listened to the reading of both of our kids when they were very young. I hope we helped them read earlier and more fluently. But we have never felt that their homework was our homework and we never hovered over them until their assignments were perfection. And we never have felt that their grades are our grades and that we had to help them in any way possible to get the highest grade possible.

Homework is to be the results of the students’ efforts, not the results of the students’ efforts plus substantial help from your parents or others. Take home exams are the results of the students’ efforts not the result of the students’ efforts plus the help of others. Grades are based on the work done by the student, not (under usual circumstances) by a group. At every grade we need to reinforce the importance of the students’ efforts and at every grade we need to reinforce the penalty that will be paid if that effort turns out to be the result of someone else’s intervention. And the penalties need to be much harsher for any repeat offense.

Democracy on the Local Level

Our local school board, of which I am vice president, recently held an open town hall meeting. The meeting was very well attended and the individuals present represented a broad spectrum of local opinion. These are challenging times for many local schools and in fact for many residents in the community. A sluggish economy and high taxes take their toll. But even with the formidable challenges present and the vast differences of opinion, I was impressed by the community and had great respect for all the voices that made their opinions known. In New York, we have a strict tax cap that will impact the school budget beginning next year. A very passionate resident who spoke early in the meeting pushed us to propose overriding the cap. Later in the program there were multiple retirees talking about the impact that the school budget and real estate taxes in general have on their well being. I understand and sympathize with both points of view. If resources weren’t scarce, we could do more in terms of serving the needs of our kids. If taxes didn’t rise, social security recipients who waited two years for an increase would have their purchasing power remain stable rather than being compromised by higher taxes. As the meeting continued, there were speakers who expressed concern about services for special needs children, speakers who questioned why there were defined benefit pension plans for individuals working in the school system, speakers who wanted to know the effect on class size and elective offerings under the tax cap. We reassured parents that special education programs were mandated and would not be trimmed. We talked about the problems inherent in a defined benefit pension plan but no one suggested or would suggest any change or diminution for existing employees. And we reminded the audience that defined benefit pensions were legislated by the state and that the school board had no options other than to adhere to the state requirements. We talked about the modest impact of the tax cap on class size, on elective offerings and the overall breadth and depth of the education we provide. At the end of the town hall meeting, almost three hours later, I think everyone in the audience had a clearer sense of the issues, of the opinion of others, and the fact that difficult questions rarely have black and white easy answers. What happens next? I have confidence that the critical issues are being aired in an open and transparent manner. I have confidence that the community is being well informed and that it has a real voice in the decision making process. And I also have confidence in the school board and especially in my colleagues and the superintendent that at the end of the day, we will make the decisions that are in the best interests of our kids, of our teachers, and of our community. Doing more with less should always be a goal but won’t result in major savings assuming that basic efficiencies are already in place. With mandated costs that are rising faster than the tax cap, there will be an impact and at the margin we will be making changes. But by hearing, listening, working together and striking a balance, I am convinced we will make the right decisions and serve the community well. Now if only Washington could function in the same collaborative way.