Toni Radcliffe ’14: Even though Geoff Wagg, Head of Upper School, began the year by issuing a bold challenge for Episcopal to become a school with no cheating, it seems our community has seen no improvement in this area.
Firstly, cheating, as defined in the Student Handbook, is the use of inappropriate and unacknowledged materials, information, or study aids. The Community Expectations clearly state that academic honesty is expected of Episcopal students and that those who fail to meet that expectation will face a major disciplinary offense. Students who cheat must go before the Discipline Committee and may receive disciplinary probation, suspension, or expulsion.
However, only the Head of Upper School and/or the student’s Form Dean determine the guilt of the student. After evidence has been established of the student’s disciplinary offense within a hearing, the Discipline Committee recommends a suitable punishment. Ultimately, the Head of Upper School decides to accept, adjust, or reject the recommendation of the Discipline Committee.
Nevertheless, the student is given a chance to explain their situation in a trial before the Discipline Committee, comprised of student representatives and members of the Upper School faculty. After the trial, the Discipline Committee usually recommends one of five levels: disciplinary study hall, Saturday detention, counseling; disciplinary study hall, disciplinary ineligibility, loss of senior privileges, Saturday detentions, counseling; disciplinary probation, Saturday detentions, counseling; suspension, Saturday detentions counseling; and, finally, expulsion.
In theory, the Discipline Committee route should appropriately punish a student who has cheated; however, in practice, it fails to do so. Often, there is little to no evidence to prove that cheating has occurred. The lack of a proctor and other inadequate evidence may result in a disciplinary hearing that leads to no disciplinary consequence.
The Upper School administration shared its desire to have Episcopal become a place of academic integrity, where no student is put in the position where he or she can or would cheat. This crackdown seemed necessary after alleged cheating scandals of the last academic year.
Can one address cure the temptations of modern technology? The simple answer is no. Kris Aldridge, faculty member of the Discipline Committee, admitted, “I have seen no appreciable difference [between the amount of students who have gone to the committee in regards to a cheating allegation.]”
However, without divulging private information, some have suggested that disciplinary consequences this year have, in fact, been more severe. Callie Avellino ’14, student representative of the Discipline Committee, explained, “A lot of disciplinary hearings are cheating related. In a sense, I think the [no-cheat] campaign took effect. Different circumstances have called for different levels of punishments.”
The administration has expressed its wishes to end the existence of cheating at the Episcopal Academy, yet it has failed to mention how to do so. It is unclear as to whether the Upper School plans to end the cheating culture through far more severe disciplinary consequences or through the promotion of academic integrity. If we choose the former, but keep discipline committee meetings secret, how can the student body be coaxed into truthful behavior without knowing of the consequences of untruthful behavior?
The incoming administration must decide how it will continue a plan to end cheating. Through the promotion of academic integrity, the administration can gain a more publicized, universal reaction from Upper School students. However, by increasing the severity of disciplinary consequences of cheating, the administration decreases the incentive to cheat.
Although it is a tough decision between public recognition and scare tactics, it is one the new administration must make in the name of the academic integrity of the Episcopal Academy.