Guest Opinion | PUSD’s Investigation Responding to Roosevelt Whistle-blowers Covers Up Cheating Rather than Uncovering It – Part 1

PUSD Superintendent’s rationale for Madison falls apart if there was systematic cheating at Roosevelt

Pasadena Unified School District Superintendent Brian McDonald’s relies upon Juan Ruelas’ record in achieving high test scores as Roosevelt Elementary School Principal. The Superintendent justifies denying Madison Elementary School a site Principal selection committee and unilaterally imposing Juan Ruelas as Madison’s new Principal because he supposedly accomplished an educational miracle at Roosevelt. The Superintendent doggedly defends Ruelas in spite of unprecedented resistance from the Madison community, thereby making it a matter of continuing public interest whether Ruelas in fact brought educational improvement to Roosevelt or whether high test scores reflect cheating.

The unexplained disappearance of PUSD’s records of the investigation prompted by Roosevelt whistle-blowers warrants concluding that the Roosevelt investigation was a cover-up

After the May, 2011, State-mandated student testing, PUSD Board of Education Members and the California Department of Education (“CDE”) received 3 anonymous whistle-blower emails complaining about systematic cheating at Roosevelt Elementary School – a May, 2011, email to the Board Members, an August, 2011, email to the CDE, and a January 26, 2012, email to the CDE. In response to our Public Records Act request for the investigation documents that followed up on those whistle-blower complaints, PUSD admits that the investigation documents inexplicably disappeared. Still surviving are (1) a CDE letter determining that there were test irregularities and (2) a couple of emails in which top PUSD administrators communicated relief that California will not have “a Georgia problem” and that PUSD was able to contain the testing scandal resulting from the whistle-blower complaints.

PUSD’s “investigation” limited the Roosevelt testing irregularities to only 3 students in a 2011 Roosevelt 2nd grade class. Can we 6 years later, when the investigation documents have disappeared, determine whether the “investigation” uncovered all of the cheating? Or was the investigation designed to just cover up systematic Roosevelt cheating?

We can at least begin to answer the questions by drawing the reasonable inference that the investigation documents have disappeared because they would show a cover-up. California law has a common-sense jury instruction that says “If you decide that a party [intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence], you may decide that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party.” (CACI #204). Applying that decision-making guide to the unexplained disappearance of the Roosevelt cheating investigation documents warrants concluding that the documents show an inadequate investigation designed to contain the scandal rather than to uncover all of the cheating. That conclusion is furthered by looking at what happened in the Sierra Madre Elementary School cheating scandal watched over by the same PUSD administrators at about the same time as the Roosevelt investigation.

The Sierra Madre investigation suggests a pattern of investigations designed to cover up cheating, not to uncover it

The PUSD administrators responsible for conducting the investigation that was prompted by the Roosevelt whistle-blowers were IT Director Jay Carnow and HR Director Yolanda Mendoza. Carnow and Mendoza were also over the contemporaneous investigation of cheating complaints at Sierra Madre Elementary School.

More investigation documents have survived on the Sierra Madre site than for Roosevelt. The Sierra Madre investigation documents show that, on Carnow’s and Mendoza’s watch, its investigation was designed to avoid discovering the full extent of the cheating problem rather than uncovering it. The Sierra Madre investigation was prompted by 2 parents whose 3rd grade students told them their teacher was coaching them on the tests and by a staff member who was told by a student that the same teacher coached him on the tests. Only 2 of those 3 students were interviewed; these 2 students who were interviewed confirmed the coaching. 4 students seated near one of the students were also interviewed; 1 of those nearby students confirmed teacher coaching which led him to change at least 1 of his answers. The teacher was interviewed and denied coaching. Dr. Carnow completed the CDE’s Irregularity Report Form and reported 3 students involved, ignoring the 4th nearby student who confirmed coaching. The Irregularity Report Form reflects no discipline in the matter. The only remedial measures were additional proctors after the investigation and further training of the teacher.

The Sierra Madre investigation was plainly inadequate. When more than half of the small sample of 7 students confirmed coaching, the investigators should have assumed that the teacher was unlikely to just coach that small group but rather was probably coaching many more students; the investigators should have tested that assumption by further interviews. Uncritically accepting the teacher’s denial was not an investigations best practice. Minimizing the infraction as limited to only 3 students was unjustified, both because it inaccurately ignored confirmation by a 4th student and because it ignored the probability that the teacher was engaged in systematically coaching students rather than just isolated coaching of the 4 students that the limited interviewing uncovered.

PUSD should have investigated the case more than the superficial interviews it conducted of a few students. All of the students in the class should have been interviewed. PUSD could have and should have contracted to have the teacher’s test booklets subjected to erasure detection. Erasure detection determines, where there is an erasure, whether the answer was changed from wrong-to-right or from right-to-wrong. If the teacher is coaching students to change from wrong-to-right, there will be statistically significant higher wrong-to-right corrections. For budget reasons, the CDE stopped regular erasure detection from 2009-2011, but PUSD could have contracted to get it done in this case where there was other cheating evidence.) With erasure detection testing in hand and with confirmation of more teacher coaching than just 4 students from interviewing the whole class, PUSD could have had overwhelming misconduct evidence to support teacher discipline.

Bottom line: the administrators who allowed a cover up of Sierra Madre’s cheating would likely allow a cover-up at Roosevelt.

More evidence of a cover-up Thursday night from a Roosevelt whistle-blower

The foregoing is indirect evidence of systematic cheating at Roosevelt. A Roosevelt whistle-blower will surface at Thursday nights’ PUSD Board meeting during the public comment period around 7 pm. In Part-2, we will discuss the implications of direct evidence of cheating at Roosevelt.

Skip Hickambottom and Dale Gronemeier are local civil rights attorneys; they represent Madison parents, teachers and community members who are seeking, among other demands, that PUSD reopen the investigation of cheating at Roosevelt during the time Ruelas was Principal.