Jerry Jesness is a special education teacher in a south Texas elementary school. His email address is: jjesness@hiline.net.

Here is a multiple-choice question that you will not find on any standardized exam: Why do some teachers and school administrators cheat or encourage cheating on standardized tests?

a) Educators as a group lack principles. b) Educators are under unreasonable pressure to raise test scores. c) Educators are only making reasonable adjustments for cultural bias in the tests. d) Test security is too lax.

If you answered "D," you get a gold star.

By using the test-taking strategies that have become a de facto part of public-school curricula nationwide, we can eliminate "A" (educators as a group are no less honest than people working outside of education), "B" (most employees, not just teachers, expect to be subject to audits and performance reviews) and "C" (fraud considered an appropriate remedy for discrimination in any section of the economy). That leaves the final choice. That's right: Poor test security makes cheating possible, likely and, yes, to a certain extent even inevitable.

A history of cheating

In no other arena are those who stand to benefit or suffer according to test results in charge of testing. Law schools do not give the bar exam, nor do driving schools give drivers' license exams. And imagine the public reaction if we decided to eliminate track meets and award regional and state championships according to times and distances submitted by coaches.

But that is exactly the situation you have with teachers and administrators who give today's high-stakes tests to students. Perhaps no clearer conflict of interest exists.

Which raises the next multiple-choice question on your test about standardized exams: Why isn't test security tighter?

a) Cheating is rare. b) Honest teachers would be justifiably outraged. c) The cost would be prohibitive. d) The first round of results would be embarrassing.

Apply the strategies for successful test-taking again to get the correct answer. Consider answer choice "A." While cheating is more the exception than the rule, it is certainly not rare. Recent cheating scandals in New York and elsewhere are hardly a novelty.

There's always a cheating scandal somewhere

In his 1989 report, "How Public Educators Cheat on Standardized Tests: The Lake Wobegon Report," West Virginia physician John Jacob Cannell reported that 70% of all students and 90% of all schools were at or above average according to standardized test results. Cannell also reported receiving letters from teachers throughout the country who cheated, knew of cheating in their schools or felt pressure from superiors to cheat.

There seems to always be a cheating scandal somewhere. This year, it is New York City's turn. Last year, the Houston Press revealed testing irregularities in Texas' largest city. In 1997, The Times-Picayune in New Orleans found evidence of widespread local cheating on the California Achievement Test and the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program tests. In recent years, Connecticut, Maryland and Illinois all have had schools embroiled in cheating scandals.

We do not know exactly how widespread standardized-test cheating actually is, but recent history tells us that the problem is significant, so we can scratch answer "A."

Tough tests at a good price

Now on to choice "B." As an honest public-school teacher, I would be relieved, not insulted, by stricter test security. In this, I speak for many of my peers. There is nothing more aggravating than knowing that one's career may be affected by the outcome of a test that may not be honestly administrated. No, "B" cannot be the correct answer.

Neither can "C." Full test security would be somewhat expensive but not prohibitive.

Graduation-level tests could be given like the SAT, with students testing away from their schools with proctors who do not know them. For less crucial exams, we still could greatly enhance security at little or no extra cost. Tests could be delivered, shrink-wrapped, to neighborhood banks and left locked in a vault until the morning of test day.

Each school could allow some of its support staff to serve as test administrators for schools in nearby districts. Proctoring assignments could be determined by last-minute lottery, with no teacher testing his or her own students. Answer sheets could be packed in tamper-evident bags and returned bearing the postmark of the testing day.

Some of these security enhancements would cost absolutely nothing.

Embarrassing, yet educational

That just leaves answer choice "D." That's right, the first round of honest test results would be embarrassing. The majority of schools would produce scores within a standard deviation or so of those of the previous year's less secure tests, but there would be some high-profile surprises.

After a year or so, however, the fuss would blow over, and we would reap the benefits of honest reporting. Honest scores would enable schools to more appropriately deliver instruction, and greater test integrity would increase the level of public confidence.

To quote a book that is rarely quoted in public schools anymore, "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free."