Throwing the Book: Is Prison Too Harsh for Atlanta School Cheating Scandal?

[jimmy olsen]

That's way too long! 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/atlanta-cheating-scandal-n341516

Throwing the Book: Is Prison Too Harsh for Atlanta School Cheating Scandal?

By Jon Schuppe

Like so many others around the country, Georgia Federation of Teachers President Verdaillia Turner watched what happened in an Atlanta courtroom Tuesday and came away shaking her head.

A day earlier, Fulton Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter told 10 people convicted of a massive test-cheating scandal that he'd go easy on them if they admitted their guilt, apologized and waived their right to appeal the sentence he imposed.

Only two accepted. The rest he sentenced to prison on Tuesday, some for as long as seven years.

"They should have taken the deal," Turner said. "I have no idea why these folks were so hardheaded."

Turner, who also runs the Atlanta Federation of Teachers, knows the value of taking a deal. She helped dozens of members arrange for lenient punishment in return for admitting their roles early on in the investigation, which found educators had fed answers to students or erased and changed answers on standardized tests, making it look like the troubled 50,000-student city school system had engineered a remarkable turnaround.

Evidence pointed to cheating in 44 schools with nearly 180 educators, involving teachers, principals and administrators. Teachers who tried to report it were threatened with retaliation.

Turner said 48 of her members were "disposed of" before the trial, and most have "landed on their feet," some in education jobs, others out of the industry.

The others got the book thrown at them: seven years in prison for Tamara Cotman, Sharon Davis Williams and Michael Pitts; two years for Tabeeka Jordan; one year for Angela Williamson, Dana Evans, Diane Buckner-Webb and Theresia Copeland. Many plan to appeal.

"All I want for many of these people is to just take some responsibility," Baxter said. "But they refuse."

Even after Baxter's warning, the stiffness of his sentences surprised many in the education industry.

"We thought they were fairly harsh, the sentences," said Tim Callahan, spokesman for the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, which also represents teachers. "But certainly a wrong had been done, and needed to be exposed, and people needed to pay the price."

James Wolfinger, an associate professor of history and education at DePaul University, said it was remarkable to him that cheating had led to racketeering charges, a device typically used against gangsters and drug dealers. The sentences "feel excessive," he said.

But Wolfinger also noted that the case reflects the increased politicization of public school curricula, and state-mandated reforms that punish systems that perform poorly.

The judge, and the justice system, needed to make an example of people, he said.

"I do think it has to do with a move to more of a testing regime in schools — that if we're going to use high-stakes testing, then the stakes should be high for educators as well."

Eventually, 12 defendants went to trial. Eleven were convicted of racketeering. Ten appeared appeared before Baxter on Monday and were given an opportunity for leniency. The two who did, Donald Bullock and Pam Cleveland, avoided jail.

[Habbaku]

Not too harsh at all.  I'm glad they're reaping the fruits of their actions.

[Martinus]

That's insane.

Also, a judge blackmailing the defendants into waiving the right to appeal or he will pass a heavy sentence seems like a complete perversion of justice and right to fair trial.

[grumbler]

Yeah, this is one of the worst judges ever.  I am hoping that some adults will look at the case and reverse.

[jimmy olsen]

Not too harsh at all.  I'm glad they're reaping the fruits of their actions.

Seven years is not harsh?

[Admiral Yi]

If I'm not mistaken, they got cash bonuses for the improved test scores.

[Neil]

If I'm not mistaken, they got cash bonuses for the improved test scores.

Well, that would make it a little more justifiable.  Still, this judge seems like a real goofball.  But then again, he was probably elected, and that's what you get when you elect judges.

[Admiral Yi]

That's insane.

Also, a judge blackmailing the defendants into waiving the right to appeal or he will pass a heavy sentence seems like a complete perversion of justice and right to fair trial.

My understanding is anyone who accepts a plea deal waives the right to appeal.

[KRonn]

Seems ok to me. A massive cheating scandal like this, some of them will deserve heavy punishment, or especially if they don't genuinely show some remorse and own up to what they did. They cheated these kids out of an education in order to make themselves look good and defrauded the school system in a major way. Since when is this kind of action to be taken lightly? Seven years for some of them, they'll be out in half that time.

[Martinus]

That's insane.

Also, a judge blackmailing the defendants into waiving the right to appeal or he will pass a heavy sentence seems like a complete perversion of justice and right to fair trial.

My understanding is anyone who accepts a plea deal waives the right to appeal.

I don't know how this looks like in the US, but in Poland the deal is made between the prosecutor and the defendant and then reviewed by the judge to make sure it is equitable, the defendant is not acting under duress and is not being misled etc. The last element is crucial to a proper plea bargain in my view (and, I assume, under most civilized systems). This is obviously not the case when the "plea bargain" is offered by the judge and there is no oversight.

[Sophie Scholl]

Juking the stats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogxZxu6cjM

[Habbaku]

Not too harsh at all.  I'm glad they're reaping the fruits of their actions.

Seven years is not harsh?

I don't think seven years is too harsh, no.  Is it harsh?  Yes.

As others have intimated, however, I am not particularly enamored of the judge involved.  I am uncertain of the legality of Judge Baxter's intimidation tactics with regards to a plea deal, but it would seem to me that that is against the rules.

[grumbler]

Seems ok to me. A massive cheating scandal like this, some of them will deserve heavy punishment, or especially if they don't genuinely show some remorse and own up to what they did. They cheated these kids out of an education in order to make themselves look good and defrauded the school system in a major way. Since when is this kind of action to be taken lightly? Seven years for some of them, they'll be out in half that time.

The kids didn't get cheated of anything.  If anything, the kids got the benefit of thinking that they could succeed in the world.  This case was about cheating on bullshit tests, not about education. 

As far as how much they "cheated" the system of in bonuses, the argument is a joke.  Bankers who cheated the US taxpayers of a hundred times as much in the sub-prime frauds got no punishment at all; these people were charged with racketeering (in the most egregious case of over-charging in recent memory) and got hammered because a test-crazed Federal government essentially forced the Atlanta school system to cheat or lose funding the students desperately needed.

The irony is that the supposed ringleader of this "crime against children" was the winner of a national award for best school administrator, based oin criteria that essentially ignored standardized test scores.  In essence, the prosecution of this case that has harmed the kids far more than the cheating ever did.

They were sentenced to 25 years, so the seven years is the reduced time for good behavior.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

If I'm not mistaken, they got cash bonuses for the improved test scores.

They also got not fired, which was apparently the primary motivator.  The scandal is a direct result of No Child Left Alive and the braindead performance targets it forces on schools.  Once you get into the pattern of committing fraud to save your job, it isn't too hard to go a little further and get some bonuses too.

[grumbler]

I don't think seven years is too harsh, no.

is there any felony for which you would think it too harsh?  This is about as low-grade a felony as I can think of (it's not quite victimless, but it's close) and seven years of actual time is a lot for a crime that, it turns out, is only punished by some weekend service if you kiss the judge's ass.