Under No Child Left Behind guidelines, schools can be labeled "failing" if student test scores don't meet state benchmarks. Poor results are embarrassing for teachers and often cost principals, superintendents and school board members their jobs. By contrast, high scores on reading and math tests equal praise for those in charge.

In the face of such pressure, teachers and administrators sometimes go with their "natural reaction," said Robert Schaeffer, public education director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing.

"The teachers and principals who changed test scores did something unethical and probably illegal, [but they were] caught between a rock and a hard place," he said. "We've created a climate that corrupted the educational process. The sole goal of education ... became boosting scores by any means necessary." …

Mr. Schaeffer argues that federal lawmakers largely caused the cheating scandals by forcing schools to focus time, effort and money on standardized assessments.

"It's harder and harder for politicians with a straight face to say high-stakes testing is improving education," he said.

For its part, The New York Times couldn’t disagree with the likes of Schaeffer more because cheating scandals “made it impossible to determine how much students are learning and whether the system is doing its job”:

Test haters will inevitably blame the standardized testing mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind act for inducing this kind of misconduct. The tests remain a crucial gauge of student performance and an indicator of how much academic progress schools are making. It’s the cheats who need to go, not the tests.

To restore integrity to the Atlanta system, which serves mainly impoverished children, state and city officials need to improve test security and make sure that those involved in cheating lose their teaching certifications and never work in classrooms again. …

Atlanta is not alone in facing testing scandals. Allegations of cheating have erupted in several places, including Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Los Angeles.

There are several things that states can do. They should protect whistle-blowers so that teachers who report wrongdoing do not have to fear retaliation. They should make it clear that cheats will be stripped of their certification and barred from the profession. In addition, states should create systems in which tests are independently administered.

Strong stuff from a paper that reflexively supports unions, as a rule.

† Computer Technology Fells Copyright Troll: U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt levyied $5,000 fine against copyright troll Righthaven LLC for misleading the court, VegasInc.com reports:

Hunt said Righthaven deliberately failed to disclose the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal shares in Righthaven’s lawsuit revenue. But, without explanation, Hunt didn’t sanction any of the Righthaven attorneys that may have been responsible for the misrepresentation. …

The sanctions could have been more severe, such as disqualification of attorneys. But even with the light sanction, Mangano said Righthaven is considering appealing.

Righthaven attorney, Shawn Mangano is considering an appeal because Hunt based the sanction on grounds that the company wasn’t given a chance to respond to of the sanction. Yeah, if he can manage to file his petition on time.

† All The News That’s Fart To Print: The IA Court of Appeals ruled that you don't need to hire an expert to testify as to the difference between sh*t and Shinola. A prisoner had contested his conviction for assaulting a prison guard with “a stream of brown liquid that smelled like human feces” because the state did not establish the substance was, in fact, feces with testimony from a scatology expert, according to the Legal Skills Prof Blog. The appellate court reasoned that, “If it looks like feces, if it smells like feces, if it has the color and texture of feces, then it must be feces.” That, plus the prisoner shouting, “I got you with sh*t!” at the prison guard after the assault.

† Updates To Previous Posts (Dispatch From Bizzaroland): In diplomatic terms, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just went all Hiroshima and Nakasaki on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when she said that “From our perspective, he has lost legitimacy” during a televised press conference, The Washington Post reports:

[I]n diplomatic parlance it’s a bombshell, a shot at the moral underpinnings of another government. When stood before television cameras last week to talk about Syria’s autocratic leader, not even her aides expected her to go that far.

And then she did. …

[W]hile the White House had intended to sharpen its tone toward the Syrian leader, the decision to use the word was Clinton’s, according to two administration officials familiar with the incident.

Clinton’s utterance, coupled with Ambassador Robert Ford’s decision - also unscripted - to visit the opposition stronghold of Hama on July 7, nudged the administration a step closer to declaring that Assad must step down. Taken together, the visit and Clinton’s remark show how the administration’s policy toward the Syrian autocrat has lately been shaped more by diplomatic improvisation than methodical planning within the White House. [Emphasis, The Stiletto.] …

By late last week, administration officials agreed on a plan to turn up the rhetorical pressure, however modestly, by declaring that Assad was “not indispensable” as Syria’s leader. The phrase was deliberately chosen to echo what U.S. officials say was a private boast Assad had made to foreign diplomats, claiming that his position as Syrian president was safe because U.S. and European leaders regarded him as “indispensable” in keeping ethnically divided Syria from fragmenting into chaos and possible civil war.

Clinton used the phrase at the start of a joint news conference Monday with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton. …

“President Assad is not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power,” Clinton said.

Then, pressed by a reporter to clarify her views about Assad, she went off script. “I mean, from our perspective, he has lost legitimacy,” she added.

Due to a weird warp in Internet time, WaPo columnist David Ignatius found himself praising the administration's "caution" in handling the Syrian uprising in a column about "Obama's communication gap" in the same issue – this was after Hillary Clinton decided to throw caution to the winds and lob her rhetorical nuke:

The administration’s caution on Syria makes sense … The goal is a transition to a new, democratic Syria without a sectarian war that would be worse than Iraq’s. The administration raised the pressure by sending Ambassador Robert Ford to Hama, scene of the horrific 1982 massacre. The message: This time, the world is watching.

Arguments that Ford should be recalled, or that Obama should throw some fiery rhetoric at the Syrian dynamite keg, strike me as very wrong. That said, Obama needs to explain his vision of democratic transition and work with the Syrian opposition to achieve it, peacefully.

Perhaps Ignatius will conclude – as The Stiletto already has – that there is nothing cautious,  deliberate or disciplined about the Obama administration’s foreign policy, abd that it is “unscripted” and “improvised,” which is the MSM euphemism for “making it up moment to moment.” 

† Updates To Previous Posts (eighth item, Obama Creating Green Jobs That Americans Won’t Do): Noting that President Barack Hussein Obama seems to be having a hard time figuring out how to make a meaningful cut in the $3.6 trillion is on track to spend this year, The Washington Times suggests that he stop “pouring billions in other people's money into any product bearing the ‘green" label’ [and] handing over sacks of cash to foreigners” in his boyhood home of Indonesia and elsewhere:

[The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s] oversight staff … turned the spotlight on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding of 320 programs that dole out nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer cash to stimulate economies overseas. The Chinese government pocketed $718,000 from taxpayers in a grant supposedly to help the Middle Kingdom meet international air-quality emissions targets. Thailand's government was handed $700,000 to harness the power of pig flatulence as "renewable energy." The EPA gave Interpol $150,000 to prop up a program to detect "fraud" in Europe's carbon-trading markets, which were specifically designed to make global warming hysteria profitable. The United Nations took home $1,226,841 to browbeat Third World countries into pumping pointless ethanol into their gas tanks.

After making deeper inquiries, the staff found a public-relations campaign known as "Breathe Easy, Jakarta" had been listed as costing $15,000. The EPA's actual expenditures on this project will total $1.5 million. The Obama administration's outrageous spending at home is bad enough. There's no reason to spend millions exporting American bureaucracy to countries that are better off without it.

† Updates To Previous Posts (sixth item, The Day Newt Gingrich’s Candidacy Died): The Washington Post provides a “revealing look at the contrasting priorities and styles of the White House hopefuls” gleaned by poring over the first major spending reports of the 2012 campaign. Here is a bottom-line summary:

‡ “[S]uggesting that it really does take money to make money,” President Barack Hussein Obama spent “$5 million on fundraising and hiring some 150 campaign staffers.” Obama has also “spent lavishly to entertain rich donors at $35,800-a-plate fundraisers in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee, including $117,000 at the Broadway Theatre and $185,000 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel, both in New York. His campaign paid Sony Pictures $102,000 for catering and site rental after holding two events there in April.”

‡ Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) “is big into political consultants and security guards, underscoring the establishment nature of his campaign.” He spent $1 million on administrative expenses and $2 million on fundraising and outside consultants, “far higher than his GOP opponents.” Romney’s technology expenses include $35,000 on Apple computers and software and $400 for Skype Internet phone service. Romney also spent about $150,000 on private charter flights, and paid $50,000 to three security firms for their services.

‡ Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) spent three times as much on charter flights, and owes $450,000 to Moby Dick Airways. His campaign “reported nearly $1.8 million in expenditures and outstanding debts of $1 million,” including nearly $800,000 on Internet and software-related services to launch his Website – which dwarfs even Obama’s technology layout of $157,000.

‡ Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) “outpaced his rivals by spending $200,000 at businesses in Iowa [and] dropped more than $600 on teleprompters and cosmetic services for his campaign kickoff in Des Moines.” He also spent more than $580,000 on staff salaries, “a notably higher percentage than most of the other candidates.”

As The WaPo notes:

The spending patterns seem to back up many of the political stereotypes attached to the major candidates: Obama as grass-roots organizer turned campaigner in chief; Romney the chief executive of a by-the-books campaign; and Pawlenty the eager newcomer struggling to get ahead.

Which is particularly unfortunate for Gingrich. Because his spendthrift ways feed into the perception that he is undisciplined and isn’t willing to buckle down and wage a serious campaign.

† Updates To Previous Posts (last item, 10 Reasons Michelle Obama Should Be Proud – Really Proud – Of America): As Yankee fan Christian Lopez continues to be showered with praise and gifts in equal measure for his selflessness in giving Derek Jeter the 3000^th ball he hit in his career, a furious debate over whether the largesse is taxable or not is being waged by tax experts, The Wall Street Journal reports:

Whether the IRS keeps its paws off Lopez’s prizes depends on whether the sponsoring companies - Modell’s Sporting Goods, Steiner Sports and Miller High Life - are deemed to have no business reasons for being so generous, according to the WSJ.

“The legal test is basically the same test as to whether the other items were a gift, which is whether these are made out of detached and disinterested generosity or whether for some other reason,” Michael Graetz, who advised the IRS on Mark McGwire’s 62^nd home run ball in 1998, told the Journal.