INVESTIGATIVE TEAM Governor’s Special Investigators Michael J. Bowers Robert E. Wilson Richard L. Hyde Balch and Bingham, LLP Wilson, Morton and Downs, LLC James L. Hollis Keri P. Ware E. Righton Johnson Roslyn S. Mowatt Kara M. Engelberger, Paralegal Linda Weaver, Paralegal Debbie Daley, Legal Assistant Tracey Duren, Legal Assistant Susan G. Hughes, Legal Assistant Cheryl Hicks, Legal Assistant Barbara Watson, Legal Assistant The Alford Group D. Lance Alford Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vernon M. Keenan Inspector John Heinen Special Agent Heather Strickland (Case Agent) Rocky Bigham Randall McMahan Leigh Brooks Bahan Rich Sean Edgar Evelyn Rodgers Wesley Horne Keith Sitton Eugene Howard Kristina Smalley Anita Ivy Fred Wimberly Keesha Walker-Intelligence Analyst Georgia Department of Public Safety Col. Mark McDonough, Commissioner Georgia State Patrol, Post 40, Albany Report Limitations This report is only an overview of our findings. It does not include every detail or fact developed during this investigation. Nor does it include every relevant document. All notes, documents, transcripts and interview summaries related to this investigation will be available to you, and the appropriate authorities for whatever action, if any, is appropriate. Special Thanks We wish to express our gratitude to you and Governor Perdue for your support of our work. We also wish to extend our appreciation to Ms. Kathleen Mathers, former Director of the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, for her indispensable assistance throughout this investigation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 1 The CRCT .................................................................................................................. 3 Interviews and Document Review ............................................................................. 4 2009 Erasure Analysis ............................................................................................... 5 Standard Deviations Chart ......................................................................................... 6 DCSS Erasure Analysis ............................................................................................. 7 Verification of the Erasure Analysis .......................................................................... 8 Use of the Erasure Analysis in This Investigation ................................................... 11 School Summaries .................................................................................................... 11 West Town Elementary School ..................................................................... 13 New Jackson Heights Elementary School ..................................................... 21 Northside Elementary School ........................................................................ 34 Martin Luther King Elementary School ........................................................ 45 Turner Elementary School ............................................................................. 54 Alice Coachman Heights Elementary School ............................................... 65 Morningside Elementary School ................................................................... 73 Sherwood Acres Elementary School ............................................................. 79 Lamar Reese Elementary School ................................................................... 87 Sylvester Road Elementary School ............................................................... 90 Radium Springs Elementary School .............................................................. 95 Summary Chart ............................................................................................ 100 Glossary.................................................................................................................. 101 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 2 2009 vs. 2010 ......................................................................................................... 106 Why Cheating Occurred......................................................................................... 107 Pressure to Meet AYP ................................................................................. 107 Fear of Failure .............................................................................................. 108 Failure of Leadership ................................................................................... 109 James Wilson Report ............................................................................................. 112 Dianne Daniels ............................................................................................. 113 Dr. Sally Whatley ........................................................................................ 113 Findings .................................................................................................................. 114 Glossary.................................................................................................................. 117 Exhibits .................................................................................................................. 122 Exhibit 1 ....................................................................................................... 122 Exhibit 2 ....................................................................................................... 148 Exhibit 3 ....................................................................................................... 194 Exhibit 4 ....................................................................................................... 196 Exhibit 5 ....................................................................................................... 233 Exhibit 6 ....................................................................................................... 262 Exhibit 7 ....................................................................................................... 292 OVERVIEW The disgraceful situation we found in the Dougherty County School System (DCSS) is a tragedy, sadly illustrated by a comment made by a teacher who said that her fifth grade students could not read, yet did well on the Criterion- Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT). This incredible statement from a teacher in a school where the principal flatly refused to cooperate with our investigation is indicative of what we found in many of the schools we visited. To our amazement, this top-level administrator would not even answer questions about how she mishandled her duties as the person who is most responsible, at that school, for overseeing all testing activity. Another school principal, whose salary was over $90,000 per year, allowed her family to falsely claim that they were eligible for a federally-funded free lunch each school day, even though official guidelines required the annual income to be no more than $24,089. Yet another principal, with regard to our interviews, told a teacher: “Don’t you tell them anything, you hear?” Notwithstanding these examples of misconduct, there are skilled, dedicated and well-meaning educators in this school system. But their work is often overshadowed by an acceptance of wrongdoing and a pattern of incompetence that 1 is a blight on the community that will feel its effects for generations to come. This is the Dougherty County School System. Hundreds of school children were harmed by extensive cheating in the Dougherty County School System. In 11 schools, 18 educators admitted to cheating. We found cheating on the 2009 CRCT in all of the schools we examined. A total of 49 educators were involved in some form of misconduct or failure to perform their duty with regard to this test. While we did not find that Superintendent Sally Whatley or her senior staff knew that crimes or other misconduct were occurring, they should have known and were ultimately responsible for accurately testing and assessing students in this system. In that duty, they failed. The 2009 erasure analysis, and other evidence, suggests that there were far more educators involved in cheating, but a fair analysis of the facts did not allow us to sufficiently establish the identity of every participant. The statistics, and the individual student data, leave little room for any other reasonable explanation, save for cheating. For example, the percentage of flagged classrooms for DCSS is ten times higher than the state average. Unlike our investigation of criminal misconduct in the Atlanta Public Schools, officials with Dougherty County Schools (and their agents) provided, in a timely and professional manner, access to all personnel and needed documents. 2 THE CRCT The CRCT is a multiple choice examination given annually to all public school students in Georgia. There are five tested subjects: reading; English/language arts; math; social studies and science. Students are scored as “meets standards,” “exceeds standards” or “does not meet standards.” The CRCT is an important test. Its results help determine whether a school makes “Annual Yearly Progress” (AYP) as required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). All elementary and middle schools within a district must administer the CRCT at the same time and in the same manner, during a nine-day window. During the first five days, a different subject area is tested each day. The last four days of the window are used for make-up testing. Georgia law requires that the test be administered under tightly-controlled conditions: the test materials are delivered to the individual schools several days before testing begins. Each school designates a certified educator to be responsible for test administration. This person is known as the testing coordinator, who must ensure that the test is administered according to the test protocols. But the principal bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring how the test is administered. Teachers receive training on test administration using procedures that specifically set forth how the test must be given. Any deviation from the test protocols is prohibited. 3 In first and second grade, teachers read the test questions aloud and students answer questions in the test booklet by marking the correct answer. (Exhibit 1). Teachers must read each question only twice, with no voice inflection that could suggest the answer. Third through eighth graders read the test questions for themselves and answer questions on a separate Scantron® sheet by filling in the appropriate bubble by pencil. (Exhibit 2). Each test section is timed and contains between 40 and 60 questions. Only students with special accommodations may have variances in the test administration. First and second grade students no longer take the CRCT. INTERVIEWS AND DOCUMENT REVIEW On August 26, 2010, Governor Sonny Perdue appointed us as his Special Investigators to investigate alleged test tampering, and related matters, in the DCSS. (Exhibit 3). This order augmented his directives that we were to:  Find the truth with regard to cheating, if any, on the 2009 CRCT within DCSS;  Assist state regulators in sanctioning educators who participated in cheating;  Submit information to prosecuting authorities regarding criminal conduct, if discovered. Governor Perdue emphasized that our mandate was to find the truth. He also stressed that teachers who were honest in their testimony should not be criminally prosecuted. You restated these directives to us upon assuming office. 4 In order to gain an understanding of the overall structure of DCSS, how the testing process works and the relevant players, we first conducted benchmark interviews of top officials in the District, including Dr. Sally Whatley, Renee Bridges, Dianne Daniels, Carlos Keith, and Robert Lloyd. All of these officials were interviewed again toward the end of this work. David Maschke, Rev. James Bush, and Dr. Joshua W. Murfree, Jr. were also interviewed during this investigation. We also interviewed the teachers, administrators and others at each of the flagged schools. In addition to interviews of district personnel, we met with James Wilson, who conducted the initial “investigation” on behalf of the district and he was wholly unqualified for that job. We conducted more than 650 interviews. 2009 ERASURE ANALYSIS As we did in the investigation of the Atlanta Public School System, one of the first tasks we undertook was to test the validity of the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) erasure analysis. This was done with the assistance of our expert during a visit to CTB McGraw-Hill’s test facility. The erasure analysis is, without question, accurate and reliable. In February 2010, GOSA produced an erasure analysis performed by CTB McGraw-Hill on the spring 2009 CRCT. The results of this analysis showed testing irregularities. The GOSA erasure analysis, which was performed on the 5