Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the student SPED or have a 504 plan? It might not be cheating.

Not currently and nothing in the past on record with us.

I am curious though: Why wouldn’t that be cheating? I’ve taught many students with IEPs and 504s without ever seeing an accommodation that allowed surreptitiously changing answers after grading. Is that an accommodation for some students?

There was no surreptition.

Now it looks like you are just bullying a child because you don't know how your own computer system is designed to work. You're embarrassing yourself both anonymously here and in real life to the child, parent, admin, and IT staff.

However, students not on IEPs are expected "be the adult in the room" and deal with technologocally illiterate teachers and inconsistent adult instruction more than students on IEPs.

God. Your kid is doomed because of you. I love to see it.

My kid is top of the class and consistently winning EC awards. No problem here.

Not going to grow up to be a teacher who is desperate to one day make her life worthwhile by defeating a low-IQ 10 year old in a batter of wits.

Parents who think like this do not have kids who do well. And I love how people claim their kids are “top of the class” when there is no way they have any idea how the other students are doing. You have no credibility when making claims like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the student SPED or have a 504 plan? It might not be cheating.

Not currently and nothing in the past on record with us.

I am curious though: Why wouldn’t that be cheating? I’ve taught many students with IEPs and 504s without ever seeing an accommodation that allowed surreptitiously changing answers after grading. Is that an accommodation for some students?

There was no surreptition.

Now it looks like you are just bullying a child because you don't know how your own computer system is designed to work. You're embarrassing yourself both anonymously here and in real life to the child, parent, admin, and IT staff.

However, students not on IEPs are expected "be the adult in the room" and deal with technologocally illiterate teachers and inconsistent adult instruction more than students on IEPs.

God. Your kid is doomed because of you. I love to see it.

My kid is top of the class and consistently winning EC awards. No problem here.

Not going to grow up to be a teacher who is desperate to one day make her life worthwhile by defeating a low-IQ 10 year old in a batter of wits.

NP. But your child will never be happy in life or have a good relationship, and that is really sad.

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a kid erases answers on a paper math test and then says he actually got them right, are you saying since “the system” allowed for eraser use it’s not cheating?

It it would be cheating on paper, it’s cheating when it’s digital.

My former school had an “academic dishonesty” policy rather than a “cheating” policy because parents got so insane parsing the word “cheating.”

I apologize. I was operating under the mistaken assumption that OP has more intelligence and agency than a red rubber eraser.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May or may not be cheating. Could be a late submission, depending on the assignment.

I see your point, but we have a policy that an assignment can be edited and resubmitted up multiple times until the teacher grades it. After the teacher grades it, edits are not allowed. The student changed the answers a long time after the assignment was graded.

Edits ARE allowed.

Proof: YOUR SYSTEM offered the chance to submit edits, and then your SYSTEM accepted his proposed edits, as it was explicitly programmed to do.

Is this kid your paid IT Staff? No.

Did he hack the system? No.

The kid knew he wasn't supposed to change the answer after it was graded. Just because he thought he could get away with it doesn't mean it's ok to do it.

Submitting a retake is not "changing an answer".

This threat is full of tech illiterates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the student SPED or have a 504 plan? It might not be cheating.

Not currently and nothing in the past on record with us.

I am curious though: Why wouldn’t that be cheating? I’ve taught many students with IEPs and 504s without ever seeing an accommodation that allowed surreptitiously changing answers after grading. Is that an accommodation for some students?

There was no surreptition.

Now it looks like you are just bullying a child because you don't know how your own computer system is designed to work. You're embarrassing yourself both anonymously here and in real life to the child, parent, admin, and IT staff.

However, students not on IEPs are expected "be the adult in the room" and deal with technologocally illiterate teachers and inconsistent adult instruction more than students on IEPs.

God. Your kid is doomed because of you. I love to see it.

My kid is top of the class and consistently winning EC awards. No problem here.

Not going to grow up to be a teacher who is desperate to one day make her life worthwhile by defeating a low-IQ 10 year old in a batter of wits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the student SPED or have a 504 plan? It might not be cheating.

Not currently and nothing in the past on record with us.

I am curious though: Why wouldn’t that be cheating? I’ve taught many students with IEPs and 504s without ever seeing an accommodation that allowed surreptitiously changing answers after grading. Is that an accommodation for some students?

Since the parent challenged not the student, I’m having heartburn about labeling the student as the cheater.

.

Are you kidding? The kid is a devious little sh!t. He corrected an answer he got wrong when he got the test back. He showed the test to his parent who obviously scrutinized it carefully and determined that the grade was not right and immediately contacted the teacher. The teacher explained that the student corrected his mistake after the test was graded. The parent is trying to claim that since he was physically able to change his mistake it should count.

Pathetic on the parent’s part. Sneaky on the kid’s part

This is speculation.

Anonymous wrote:It's not necessarily unfair to call this cheating, but it isn't clear that it fits the policy's definition or expectations for cheating, either.

If a student tried to trick you into accepting a late homework assignment as if it was submitted on-time, would you similarly call that cheating? That seems like an equivalent scenario to this one.

Not at all equivalent. Both wrong but not similar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the student SPED or have a 504 plan? It might not be cheating.

Not currently and nothing in the past on record with us.

I am curious though: Why wouldn’t that be cheating? I’ve taught many students with IEPs and 504s without ever seeing an accommodation that allowed surreptitiously changing answers after grading. Is that an accommodation for some students?

Since the parent challenged not the student, I’m having heartburn about labeling the student as the cheater.

.

Are you kidding? The kid is a devious little sh!t. He corrected an answer he got wrong when he got the test back. He showed the test to his parent who obviously scrutinized it carefully and determined that the grade was not right and immediately contacted the teacher. The teacher explained that the student corrected his mistake after the test was graded. The parent is trying to claim that since he was physically able to change his mistake it should count.

Pathetic on the parent’s part. Sneaky on the kid’s part

I mean, if a kid erases answers on a paper math test and then says he actually got them right, are you saying since “the system” allowed for eraser use it’s not cheating?

It it would be cheating on paper, it’s cheating when it’s digital.

My former school had an “academic dishonesty” policy rather than a “cheating” policy because parents got so insane parsing the word “cheating.”

You need to figure out how to lock assignments so this can't happen. I think what the student did is wrong and unethical and should be reprimanded.

It clearly meets the dictionary definition of cheating. The student intentionally used deceit (concealing or misrepresenting the truth) to gain an advantage to improve their grade. However, I would look in you handbook, district board policies, etc. to see what their exact definition of "cheating" is. Perhaps there is a different violation or perhaps there is an additional violation of "dishonesty", etc. that could be added.

In the end I would stop caring. You proved your point, let admin deal with how the label is written up. I wouldn't be shy about telling this story in the workroom as a warning to other teachers about tricks students are using to cheat and these types of parents.

This thread is depressing. We are doomed as a society.

Anonymous wrote:It's not necessarily unfair to call this cheating, but it isn't clear that it fits the policy's definition or expectations for cheating, either.

If a student tried to trick you into accepting a late homework assignment as if it was submitted on-time, would you similarly call that cheating? That seems like an equivalent scenario to this one.

Your having to use the word “trick” accurately shows it’s cheating and so was this. Whether or not the dumb kid is doing so “because” of his unethical witch parents who have failed utterly to parent.

Anonymous wrote:It's not necessarily unfair to call this cheating, but it isn't clear that it fits the policy's definition or expectations for cheating, either.

If a student tried to trick you into accepting a late homework assignment as if it was submitted on-time, would you similarly call that cheating? That seems like an equivalent scenario to this one.

That is cheating.

It's not necessarily unfair to call this cheating, but it isn't clear that it fits the policy's definition or expectations for cheating, either.

If a student tried to trick you into accepting a late homework assignment as if it was submitted on-time, would you similarly call that cheating? That seems like an equivalent scenario to this one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the student SPED or have a 504 plan? It might not be cheating.

Not currently and nothing in the past on record with us.

I am curious though: Why wouldn’t that be cheating? I’ve taught many students with IEPs and 504s without ever seeing an accommodation that allowed surreptitiously changing answers after grading. Is that an accommodation for some students?

There was no surreptition.

Now it looks like you are just bullying a child because you don't know how your own computer system is designed to work. You're embarrassing yourself both anonymously here and in real life to the child, parent, admin, and IT staff.

However, students not on IEPs are expected "be the adult in the room" and deal with technologocally illiterate teachers and inconsistent adult instruction more than students on IEPs.

God. Your kid is doomed because of you. I love to see it.