|  | | MESPA Home > Press Room > MESPA President's Messages |  | MCAs Assess More Than Student Progress: Protect yourself when responding to allegations
 | | Dick Oscarson, MESPA President |
March 2009 --
from MESPA President Richard Oscarson
“If I had not reported the allegation and my neglect of responsibility had been discovered, I could have lost my principal’s license and thus my job for an ethics violation.”
In a few short weeks we will be in the middle of the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs), Minnesota’s assessment answer to No Child Left Behind. Last year I found out firsthand just how “high stakes” the MCAs are for teachers and principals.
The morning after our first day of MCA testing last April, I opened my school e-mail to find a message from one of our student’s parents. The parent accused their child’s classroom teacher of giving the answers on the MCA test to his child. I promptly responded by e-mailing the parent that his allegation would be investigated. I then contacted the school district assessment coordinator and school district director of teaching and learning. Within an hour the three of us met with our district director of administrative serves to determine the steps required for reporting this allegation to the Minnesota Department of Education. Needless to say, I became very familiar with the MDE document “Internal Test Security Procedures for All Statewide Assessments.” I did learn that it was only my responsibility to report the incident, not to investigate the incident.
Fair and reasonable?
By noon that day, MDE responded that it was “fair and reasonable” that the principal get a statement from the teacher. After school that day, I met with the classroom teacher and our district director of teaching and learning to inform the teacher of the allegation and that this had been reported to MDE. Not surprisingly the teacher was shocked. She spent the next 40 minutes telling us her side of the story. Following the meeting, I reduced the events of the day to writing. I was just “covering my tracks” as our MESPA Legal Counsel Roger Aronson would have suggested.
Speaking of Roger, I did call MESPA Executive Director Fred Storti to see if I should be in contact with Roger. Fred recommended I call him, which I did. Roger assured me that I had taken all the correct steps and asked me to keep him in the loop as I went through the process.
By the next day the teacher had contacted Education Minnesota, Lakeville. Ed MN told the teacher that the principal had overreacted and never should have reported it. I expected that response as I have found over time that Ed MN’s job is to preserve the jobs of its members and not of principals. The bottom line is that if I had not reported the allegation and my neglect of responsibility had been discovered, I could have lost my principal’s license and thus my job for an ethics violation.
For the next five weeks neither the school district nor the teacher heard from MDE. At the end of May, I was notified that two MDE staff members would come to my school to interview our building assessment coordinator, the teacher, and me. I knew the teacher would be nervous, so I arranged for a substitute teacher to cover her class that day. We were interviewed separately. The teacher did have a field staff member from Ed MN sit in with her to help her answer the interviewers’ questions.
Miscommunication
By mid-June I received a five-page letter from MDE with their investigative findings. The decision stated: ”The school district did not violate Minn. R. 3501.0060, subp. 1B (2). The Teacher’s actions fell within behavior permitted under the Procedures Manual allowing test monitors to help students understand where ([a} response should go.”
During these two months the classroom teacher’s life was tipped upside down because of miscommunication. You see on the day of the MCA test, the student had asked the teacher if she was done with one section of the test. The teacher noticed that the student had not completed two of the questions. The teacher told the student that she missed doing two questions. The student then completed the two questions. That evening the father asked his daughter how did she had done on the MCA test that day. The child answered by saying: “ Really well. My teacher told me I only missed two on the test.” The rest is history.
From this episode I learned “high stakes” testing means more than meeting “AYP.” For the teacher, it meant the possibility of losing her teaching license if she had been found guilty of giving MCA testing answers to students. For the assessment coordinator, it meant making sure that all MCA test procedures are followed the letter. For me, I rediscovered the principal has accountability for all that happens within the walls of my school. Throughout the two months I really wasn’t too concerned for myself or for keeping my job, as I knew that I had legal resources of MESPA and our Legal Counsel Roger Aronson on my side. One more good reason for being a MESPA member!
The MCAs look like they are here to stay. My wish is for an uneventful, yet positive result for you and your school this spring.
|
|
