Curriculum·G706 Running a Cohort·about 33 min

Marking under pressure: assessment integrity

By the end of this lesson you can

→State what the 2011 Georgia investigation found in the Atlanta Public Schools, how many educators and schools were implicated, and what the investigators named as the cause
→Explain why a marker under pressure to produce a result will produce it, and which parts of an assessment pipeline remove the pressure rather than rely on the marker to resist it
→Compute what a second mark catches, from the pipeline's own one-in-five rate and an assumed error rate, and read what the agreement rate on the queue is measuring
→Mark an artifact the Academy's way: against the published rubric only, criterion by criterion, every fatal one met before a pass, with a note the learner and a second marker can both read

Graduate · enrolled learners

This lesson opens with The Atlanta Public Schools cheating investigation, July 2011.

What happened: Special investigators appointed by the Governor of Georgia reported in July 2011 that cheating on the state's Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests had occurred in at least 44 Atlanta public schools and implicated 178 educators, including 38 principals. Teachers and administrators had erased and corrected students' answers, in some cases at gatherings described as erasure parties, and 82 educators confessed. The roughly 800-page report found the cheating had gone on for nearly a decade, dating from about 2002 when the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act took effect, and named as the primary cause the pressure to meet targets in a data-driven environment, sustained by what it called a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation in which educators who reported concerns were punished. A former superintendent and others were later indicted; several were convicted in 2015.
The decision point: The people who changed the answers were teachers, most of whom had entered the profession to teach, and 82 of them said so under oath. They were marking under a pressure that attached their jobs, their schools' funding and their principals' careers to a number, in a system where the marker held the answer sheet and the eraser and nobody else saw it. Integrity did not survive that structure, at scale, for a decade, and the investigators named the structure rather than the teachers as the cause. An assessment pipeline that relies on the marker to resist pressure has designed in the failure; one that removes the pressure, publishes the standard, separates the marker from the outcome, and has a second person read a share of the marks blind has designed it out. That is the pipeline this track's graduates join.

What you will be able to answer

→What did the Atlanta investigation find?
→Why does a pipeline not rely on the marker's integrity?
→What does the Academy's second mark do?
→How is an artifact marked?

Orientation and Year One are open: anyone can read them without an account. From Year Two onward the lessons are for enrolled learners, because progress through the later years only means anything if it is tracked against a record.

It is free. We do not sell the list and there is nothing to buy at the end of it.

Enroll, it is free Sign in Start at the beginning

Sources and review

Confidence high·Volatility low·Reviewed 2026-09-14·Owner unassigned

Contested

The investigation's findings were contested by some of those named, and the later criminal trial convicted some defendants and acquitted others. The lesson relies on the investigators' report as published: the counts, the confessions, and the stated cause.

The worked example's error rates are assumptions, labeled as such, used to show what a one-in-five second mark can and cannot detect. The Academy's actual agreement rate is on the review queue and replaces them.

← When the institution fails the student