Teachers’ cheating on high-stakes standardized tests is a serious problem for public schools. This study examined the influence of school tenure and policy attitudes about standardized testing on teachers’ decisions to report a peer for violating testing protocol. In sum, 330 Texas school teachers responded to a survey that included a scenario depicting a teacher violating standardized testing protocol. Analysis of variance revealed that teachers with negative and moderate attitudes about standardized testing were less likely to report their peers than were those with positive attitudes about standardized testing. Implications of these findings include the important role that attitudes play in one's decision to report a peer for violating policy. The article concludes with limitations—which include the nonuse of random sampling and the reliance on a vignette rather than an actual situation—as well as directions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AssafL. (2006). One reading specialist's response to high-stakes testing pressures. Reading Teacher, 60, 158–167.
2.
BarnettT., BassK., & BrownG. (1996). Religiosity, ethical ideology, and intentions to report a peer's wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1161–1174.
3.
Bauer-SandersK. (2000). Voices from a native American classroom in Nebraska. In GlatthornA. A., & FontanaJ. (Eds.), Coping with standards, tests, and accountability: Voices from the classroom (pp. 37–50). Annapolis Junction, MD: National Education Association, Teaching and Learning Division.
4.
BishopJ. H. (1998). The effect of curriculum-based external exit exam systems on student achievement. Journal of Economic Education, 29, 171–182.
5.
BrownR. J. (1991). Cooperatives in managerial transition: What is the least disruptive way to introduce change?Management Quarterly, 32, 22–24.
6.
BurkhardtM. E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a technological change: A longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 869–898.
7.
CallahanE. S., & DworkinT. M. (1994). Who blows the whistle to the media, and why: Organizational characteristics of media whistle-blowers. American Business Law Journal, 32, 151–184.
8.
CarnoyM., & LeobS. (2003). Does external accountability affect student outcome? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 24, 305–331.
9.
CerratoP. L. (1988). What to do when you suspect incompetence. RN, 51, 36–41.
10.
ChakweraE., KhemboD., & SireciS. G. (2004). High-stakes testing in the warm heart of Africa: The challenges and successes of the Malawi National Examinations Board. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 1–17.
11.
CizekG. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 19–27.
12.
CizekG. J. (2003). When teachers cheat. Education Digest, 68, 28–32.
13.
CochL., & FrenchJ. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.
14.
FalkJ., & DraytonB. (2004). State testing and inquiry-based science: Are they complementary or competing reforms?Journal of Educational Change, 5, 345–387.
15.
FrimanP. C., WoodsD. W., FreemanK. A., GilmanR., ShortM., McGrathA. M. (2004). Relationships between tattling, likeability, and social classification: A preliminary investigation of adolescents in residential care. Behavior Modification, 28, 331–348.
GayG. H. (1990). Standardized tests: Irregularities in administering of tests affect test results. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 17, 93–103.
18.
GreenbergerD. B., MiceliM. P., & CohenD. J. (1987). Oppositionists and group norms: The reciprocal influence of whistle-blowers and co-workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 527–542.
19.
GundlachM. J., DouglasS. C., & MartinkoM. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: A social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28, 107–123.
20.
HurleyM. (2007). School reform and high stakes testing: Their impact on students in the United States and England. International Journal of Learning, 14, 239–246.
21.
JacobB., & LevittS. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 843–877.
22.
JonesB. D. (2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23, 65–86.
23.
KingG. (1997). The effects of interpersonal closeness and issue seriousness on blowing the whistle. Journal of Business Communication, 34(4), 419–436.
24.
KingG. (2001). Perceptions of intentional wrongdoing and peer reporting behavior among registered nurses. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 1–13.
25.
KingG., & HermodsonA. (2000). Peer reporting of coworker wrongdoing: A qualitative analysis of observer attitudes in the decision to report versus not report unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(4), 309–329.
26.
KnappD. E., FaleyR. H., EkebergS. E., & DuBoisC. L. Z. (1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 687–729.
27.
KohnA. (2000). The case against standardized testing.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
28.
KrugerL. J., WandleC., & StruzzieroJ. (2007). Coping with the stress of high stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23, 109–128.
29.
LancellotaG. X., & VaughnS. (1989). Relation between types of aggression and sociometric status: Peer and teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 86–90.
30.
LarkinT. J., & LarkinS. (1994). Communicating change: Winning employee support for new business goals.Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
31.
LawrenceP. R. (1958). The changing of organizational behavior patterns: A case study of decentralization.Boston: Harvard Business School.
32.
LewisL. K., & SeiboldD. R. (1993). Innovation modification during intraorganizational adoption. Academy of Management Review, 18, 322–354.
33.
MenkenK. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
34.
MiceliM. P. (2004). Whistle-blowing research and The Insider: Lessons learned and yet to be learned. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 364–366.
35.
MiceliM. P., & NearJ. P. (1988). Individual and situation correlates of whistle-blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41, 267–282.
36.
MiceliM. P., & NearJ. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and employees.New York: Lexington Books.
37.
MillerK. I., & MongeP. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about organizational change. Human Communication Research, 11, 365–386.
38.
MillerV. D., JohnsonJ. R., & GrauJ. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 59–80.
39.
MilliganJ. (2005, April 12). Attacking TAKS. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, p. E1.
40.
MinskyB. D., & MarinD. B. (1999). Why faculty members use e-mail: The role of individual differences in channel choice. Journal of Business Communication, 36, 194–217.
41.
NeivaE. R., RosM., & da PazM. G. T. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: Validation of a scale. Psychology in Spain, 9, 81–90.
42.
NicholsS. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
43.
NicholsS. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2008). Why has high-stakes testing so easily slipped into contemporary American life?Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 672–676.
OrbeM. P., & KingG. (2000). Negotiating the tension between policy and reality: Exploring nurses’ communication about organizational wrongdoing. Health Communication, 12, 41–61.
46.
PhelpsR. P. (2003). Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
47.
PhelpsR. P. (2005a). Introduction. Defending standardized testing.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
PhelpsR. P. (2005b). Persistently positive: Forty years of public opinion on standardized testing. In PhelpsR. P. (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49.
PhelpsR. P. (2005c). The rich, robust literature on testing's achievement benefits. In PhelpsR. P. (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 55–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
RichardsonB. K., WheelessL. R., & CunninghamC. (2008). Tattling on the teacher: A study of factors influencing peer reporting of teachers who violate standardized testing protocol. Communication Studies, 59, 202–219.
51.
RoseL. C., & GallupA. M. (2005, September). The 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa / Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 41–57.
52.
SalancikG. R., & PfefferJ. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–243.
53.
SherifM., & HovlandC. I. (1961). Social judgment.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
SizerT. R. (1995). Will national standards and assessments make a difference? In RavitchD. (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessment? (pp. 33–39). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
55.
TevisM., & McBrideJ. (2008). “All reforms which rest simply upon the law or the threatening of certain penalties … are transitory and futile” [John Dewey]: High stakes testing and its effects. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 58, 175–176.
56.
TrethewayA. (1997). Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A postmodern feminist analysis of clients in a human service organization. Communication Monographs, 64, 281–301.
57.
TrevinoL. K., & VictorB. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 38–64.
58.
VertunoJ. (2005, January 10). Neeley defends TAKS security against cheating reports.New York: Associated Press State and Local Wire.
59.
VictorB., TrevinoL. K., & ShapiroD. L. (1993). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: The influence of justice evaluations and social content factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 253–263.
60.
VoglerK. E., & VirtueD. (2007). “Just the facts, ma'am”: Teaching social studies in the era of standards and high-stakes testing. The Social Studies, 98, 54–58.
61.
WinklerA. (2002). Division in the ranks: Standardized testing draws lines between new and veteran teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 219–225.
