Parents were in an uproar after a teacher was caught last week administering a controversial “morality test” to students in her English language-arts class at Hilliard High School in Ohio.
The so-called Moral Foundations Test required students to give their opinions on sex, politics and patriotism, animal cruelty, and a host of other topics.
The teacher, Sarah Gillam, 35, was suspended with pay pending an internal investigation. The disciplinary action came after a parent learned of the test questions and brought them to the attention of the superintendent, according to the Columbus Dispatch. Gilliam reportedly graded each individual student on his/her “moral foundation.”
The test had 36 questions asking students to respond with one of seven choices on a scale from “Not OK” in red on the left to “OK” in green on the right.
Some of the questions included:
- “Using both a condom and a pill, a brother and a sister decide that they want to sleep with each other — just once, to see what it would be like.”
- “When Carl’s soccer team is squaring off against the team of another nation, he sings along to the other team’s national anthem instead of his own.”
- “Sarah’s dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head.”
- “A man kills a baby rabbit with a knife while on a live TV show.”
- “In sex education class, the students are taught that since the sexes are equal, the girls should sleep with as many guys as they want without fear of being considered ‘sluts.'”
- “Sarah gets drunk in a bar and makes out with two strangers at once.”
- “Brian does not cooperate with law enforcement. Whenever he is pulled over, he refuses to answer questions and starts bickering with the officer about his rights.”
“Last night, we were made aware of a classroom activity that should never have taken place,” the district said in a written statement. “We absolutely share the outrage of our parents and community.”
The written statement apologized to the students and families, calling it an “isolated incident,” and adding that “an activity of this nature would never be considered acceptable.”
Read all 36 of the questions on the test given at Hilliard High School here.
But where did the test come from?
The company that provided it, Individual Differences Research Labs, bills itself as a major online distributor of psychological assessments and personality tests. It includes more than 50 such tests on its website. Among them are tests measuring a person’s views on Islam and whether the test-taker believes it is a “peaceful” religion, as well as one’s level of narcissism, views on feminism, transgenderism, fascism, and level of agreement with President Donald Trump’s statements.
IDR Labs states on its website that its tests are developed by “peer reviewed scientific research.”
“The authors of this free online Moral Foundations Test are certified in the use of multiple different personality and aptitude tests and have worked professionally with psychology, political psychology, politics, and personality testing.”
The Moral Foundations Test administered by Gillam “was prepared on the basis of peer-reviewed findings concerning the moral preferences of more than 90,000 people,” according to the website.
Since Gillam did not come up with the test on her own, but rather pulled the questions from an online testing company, it begs the question of how many other teachers nationwide have used the same or similar personality tests.
While Gillam’s choice of test may be an extreme case, public schools have been leaning in this direction for years, increasingly testing students for their attitudes, values and beliefs.
This was one of the main issues critics had about Common Core – that it led to over-testing on subjects unrelated to academic knowledge and then logged the students’ answers into data banks, the future use of which could violate a student’s right to privacy.
Anita Hoge, a Pennsylvania-based education consultant, has been studying non-academic testing for years and has been warning parents to be more aware of what their children are tested on.
“It is called ‘Grit.’ ‘Grit’ is the new hot potato,” Hoge wrote in a op-ed for Capitol Hill Outsider in March 2017. “Why? Because it is illegal. It is based on the Common Core Social, Emotional, and Behavioral standards that are illegal. This is being done without full disclosure and written informed parental consent.”
Hoge believes the social, emotional, and behavioral aspects of children are being monitored, evaluated, and often coded. Interventions are being performed without parents’ written permission or consent.
“Sometimes the names for this are changed to such flowery phrases as mindsets, character development, citizenship, ‘grit,’ or even civics,” Hoge said.
This catches some parents off guard because it sounds so good, she said.
Hoge advises parents to do their homework, and ask teachers for copies of all tests and surveys taken by their child. Otherwise, you will likely remain in the dark. She writes:
“Do we really know what is being tested and taught in America’s classrooms? Do you know what data is being collected on your child? Education has moved away from academics. There is now a full focus on personality with teaching and testing. The goal is changing the social, emotional, and behavioral personality traits of your child.”
Under ESSA, the latest federal education legislation passed by Congress more than two years ago, the problem of collecting personal information on students did not go away, Hoge said.
“The National Governor’s Association (NGA) and Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), who copyrighted the original Common Core which was developed by ACT, added dispositions (‘grit’) to the Common Core. Academics play second fiddle – they are diluted, missing, and dumbed down.”
If students get “graded” on the answers they give to non-academic questions that provide a window into the child’s inner thoughts, disposition and value system, parents should be wary of how these answers will be used, Hoge said.
“This falls under mental health. It is psychological conditioning,” she writes. “It also happens to be illegal the way they are doing this on children in the United States.”
– – –
Anthony Accardi is a writer and reporter for The Ohio Star.
