educator4academicintegrity - Tumblr blog

educator4academicintegrity · 7 years ago

Text

My Learning Experience: Year Three

As the school year of 2016-2017 approached, I had mixed feelings. I was hopeful that a new environment would ameliorate the stress level in the ACAP classroom, which was now to be housed at the Blended Learning Academy. On the other hand, the Blended Learning Academy principal, who had resisted my efforts to bring academic integrity to the ACAP program at Del Rio High School, was still my supervisor. Call me overly optimistic, but I believed that once she saw first-hand what was happening she would come to understand what I had been trying to tell her from a distance. Also, I had a restful summer, so I felt somewhat regenerated. The previous summer, the summer of 2015, I had spent my time compiling evidence of academic fraud, which I had sent to TEA. I had planned to do the same thing for the summer school session of 2016, but my password to the online courseware system had been deactivated before the summer school session began. Apparently, I was not the only one undergoing a learning experience.

On August 17, 2016, at the first staff meeting of the Blended Learning Academy, I asked the principal if we had credit accrual policies for ACAP. Specifically, I wanted to know if the credit accrual policies for the Blended Learning Academy would be the same as the credit recovery policies as practiced at Del Rio High School. This was an important distinction because under a credit accrual program like ACAP the student has possibly never taken the course, while in a credit recovery program, students are trying to “recover” credits that they had failed through traditional instruction. I then asked for a password so I could gain access to the online courseware. I was told I would have to wait for both.

Nonetheless, the teachers and the staff members at the Blended Learning Academy were friendly and receptive. They welcomed me and made me feel at home. The Blended Learning Academy had two separate buildings. One was the 8th grade campus, which was now beginning its 2nd year. The 8th grade campus seemed worn and tired compared with the new building that housed the 9-12 campus, which is where ACAP and the other high school credit accrual programs were to be held. The new building was receiving its finishing touches when I arrived; it seemed like the perfect metaphor for a fresh start: fresh paint, new desks, clean walls, and new computers on the way. As I left that afternoon, I felt a sense of renewal.

But, later that day, I received a text from the principal informing me that I would not begin class in the new building. In the text, she asked that I return to campus so that I could ready my temporary classroom to receive students on Monday. When I arrived, the principal informed me that only two rooms in the new building were finished and those rooms were being reserved for the English teacher and Social Studies teacher. She asked that I be patient while they finished the other rooms. Although disappointed, I assured her I would. The principal then asked that I follow her so she could show me my temporary classroom. She then led me to the 8th grade cafeteria.

I spent that evening trying to recondition the cafeteria to look like a classroom. I was only partially successful; It still looked like a cafeteria, and why shouldn’t it—it still was used for that purpose. But I did manage to improve its academic ambience. Nonetheless, there were problems, which were exacerbated by the new flexible school day that the Blended Learning Academy had instituted. Under the new policy, students were allowed flexibility for scheduling their school day. While the policy required them to spend at least two hours a day in class, it gave them a choice so that they could come in the morning or the afternoon. This caused periods of overcrowding in which we did not have enough computers to go around. These overcrowding episodes were accompanied sporadically by periods in which few students showed up. It was not a well-thought-out policy. While the first week brought many challenges, I was blessed to be given great tutors. They are what I had hoped for (but never had) at the high school: professional, respectful, courteous, and academically responsible. They were great.

During the second week of classes I used my lunch period to go to the new building to check on its progress. I saw two gentlemen working in one of the classrooms. I introduced myself and asked them when the remaining rooms would be ready for classes. One gentleman, who introduced himself as the building supervisor, said that the rooms were ready. He explained that only the science classroom would be delayed further due to some equipment that needed to be installed. I immediately sought out my principal to tell her the good news. “The rooms are ready,” I said. She assured me they weren’t, saying they did not have internet capability. Disappointed, I returned to the building to ask the supervisor when the rooms would be internet ready. He said, they already have internet. Returning to my principal’s office, I requested that she talk to the building supervisor because he had told me that the rooms were internet ready. She looked at me and said angrily in a loud tone, “Mrs. Davis, I am going to let you know when the rooms are ready!” With that she went into her office and left me standing.

After my repeated queries concerning the credit accrual policies for the Blended Learning Academy went unanswered, the principal finally relented and asked that I and the 9-12 English teacher collaborate on a plan that would be applicable to the Blended Learning Academy. As the reader of my story knows, I had been thinking about this issue for a long time. So, on September 1st, we submitted our plan for Credit Accrual Policies at the Blended Learning Academy. The one-page document addressed all my concerns about maintaining academic integrity. One guideline said, “All Pretests, Mastery Tests, Unit Post Tests, and End of Semester Tests must be completed without any additional assistance.” Other guidelines addressed plagiarism, using the internet to complete tests, and other issues related to academic dishonesty. The principal used the same expeditiousness to amend our plan as we did in creating it. On September 2nd, she sent us her plan. Gone were all the policies that related to maintaining the academic integrity of the tests that were used to measure proficiency of content. I have included the actual document I sent to the principal for your review. Those portions which are highlighted are the ones that the principal deleted. She kept the policy that said that “pre-tests must be completed without any additional assistance, i.e., internet, tutor, or teacher.” For Mastery Tests, Unit Post Tests, and End of Semester Tests, there were no such restrictions. The students were free to use whatever resource that would get them a passing score. To my knowledge these policies remained in place for the entire 2016-2017 school year.

During the subsequent weeks I never once checked on the status of the new building, never once brought up the topic with the principal. I and my tutors remained in the cafeteria to service the needs of the 9-12 math students. Then, on September 22, the principal informed me that I was to be replaced by another math teacher and that I was being reassigned to teach 8th grade math at the Blended Learning Academy. I immediately protested. I was reminded what the English ACAP teacher had told me just the year before concerning her experience teaching the 8th grade at the Blended Learning Academy. I made my protest both verbally and in writing. The principal responded in an email that the “plan is currently under review by [the superintendent] and we will take direction from his feedback concerning the reassignment of all staff, including tutors.” I filed a grievance arguing that my reassignment was made in retaliation for reporting attendance and academic misconduct to the Texas Education Agency. Nothing would change however; the gears of the retaliatory machine had been well oiled and put in motion. Although, I was successful in delaying my reassignment for about a week, there was little I could do to stop it. I could resign, which in hindsight I should have done; or, I could try my best to teach 8thgrade math at the Blended Learning Academy. I chose to try.

On October 5, 2016, I reported to my new classroom, which, coincidentally, was directly across the hall from the 8th grade cafeteria. The new ACAP teacher who had replaced me also reported to her new classroom that same day. The principal had deemed the room in the new building ready to receive students. Just as I never got to experience teaching in the new building, my replacement never had to endure teaching in a cafeteria. I used the first day to introduce myself and to get to know the students. I asked them to fill out a questionnaire I had created. It was a way for me to get to know them, their hopes, dreams and desires. When I arrived home that night and began to read the responses, I knew that my classes (I had seven periods) would be challenging. Multiple students answered, “drug dealer” to my question asking what their dream job is. And the last question asked, “What is the biggest dream of your life?” Shockingly, I received more than one response that said: “To kill people.” Maybe they were joking, maybe not. Either way, it was a foreboding omen of what was to come. I showed the responses to my principal; she said she would talk to the parents. Unfortunately, if she did talk to the parents, it made little difference. The students were there the next morning and their attitudes seemed unaffected.

The first week in my new classroom was just as the ACAP English teacher had described to me the previous year. At least half of the class period was spent dealing with discipline issues. Not that there weren’t good students in my classes; there were. But the roles were reversed. In most classes, you have a few students who cause most of the problems; they are the outliers. But in the 8th grade at the Blended Learning Academy the good students were the outliers. Nonetheless, as I got to know all my students better, I did come to sympathize with them. Most came from unstable home and family environments. But this could only appease my attitude so much. Rarely did a day go by in which profanity was not directed at me by a student. I know some teachers who thrive in this environment and do great things with challenging students; unfortunately, I was not one of them. And when a student came at me with a pencil pointed like a dagger, I began to fear for my safety. As he came within my personal space with the pencil pointed at me, I said, “What are you doing!?” He played it off and said he was going to the pencil sharpener. I reported the incident, just like all the others, but the student was back in class the next day like nothing happened.

After three months, I was reaching my limit. I was reminded of a story a teacher had told me about her experience at the Blended Learning Academy. She said that one day she had gone outside during the lunch period to revive and renew her energy level for the afternoon classes. There, standing outside, she said that she began to cry and shake uncontrollably. She told me that she knew that she had to leave. Luckily for her, she was reassigned shortly thereafter. I had no such luck. On December 2, 2016, I received the district’s response to my Level I grievance; my request to reverse my reassignment was denied. I immediately filed a Level II grievance. Unfortunately, it was not just grievance hearings that I was losing; I also began to have health problems.

In November, I noticed physical symptoms that were painful and perplexing. I saw my personal physician who referred me to a specialist. There they ran a myriad of tests and eventually asked if I could come in for a biopsy. I did so; it came back positive for pre-cancer. The doctor recommended immediate treatment, so I filed for leave under the Family Medical and Leave Act. When I told my students that I would be taking an extended leave to deal with medical issues, some showed genuine concern, but most seemed unfazed. A few asked if I was going to die. When I said, “No, I don’t think so”, a couple of students opined, “That’s too bad.” Even though only a few students responded this way, why are statements like this so painful to hear. Nonetheless, I tried to forget and focus on my treatment.

As I began my fight to return to full health, I heard from the Texas Education Agency concerning my complaint. On December 19, 2016, Brenda Meyers, Director of the Special Investigations Unit at the Texas Education Agency, sent my attorney an email which said, “The investigator has concluded their investigation and has sent me the case file to review. A review of the case file will be conducted by two directors and legal before the complainant will be notified via TEA correspondence.” While I was happy with the news, I felt it was long overdue. I had sent TEA my complaint on November 20, 2015, at which time it appeared clear-cut and easy to decipher that there was widescale cheating in both the attendance reporting and the granting of academic credit in credit recovery. I had used their tardiness to send them new evidence showing that the cheating had continued. I even sent them a copy of the Blended Learning Academy’s Credit Accrual policies proffered by the principal. Nonetheless, I remained hopeful that this ordeal was almost over and that the unethical behaviors that were still ongoing at SFDRCISD would cease.

On January 12, I received the Level II grievance response from the district in which the Level I decision was upheld and my request to reverse the reassignment was denied. One week later, on January 19, 2017, I filed a Level III grievance. The last week of January, I received some great news: I was cancer free. Thanks to wonderful doctors and a loving family I had recovered and emerged from a very scary period, healthy and thankful. I met with my personal physician to tell him the news and to get a check-up. Understanding my work environment, he told me that he would not recommend submitting myself to a high stress environment; he said that there exists a possible correlation between stress and the spread of cancer cells. Even though I had been declared cancer-free, he advised me to consider extending my medical leave of absence. I discussed the doctor’s recommendations with my husband and he agreed that my health was more important than lost income. So, I applied for Educator Temporary Disability Leave, which was granted and began on January 30, 2017. I hoped that the SFDRCISD Board of Trustees, who oversees Level III grievance hearings, would correctly evaluate the validity of my grievance and return me to the ACAP classroom. So, I waited and did my best to relax and regain my strength.

My Level III Grievance hearing took place on February 12, 2017. I arrived at the SFDRCISD Administration Offices around 5:30 PM, thirty minutes prior to the start of the regular monthly meeting of the SFDRCISD Board of Trustees. I was greeted by my attorney who had preceded my arrival. We were later joined by my husband. The hearing would take place in closed session, which usually occurs at the end of the board meeting. So, we waited. There were two grievances presented that night; we were the second. Finally, we were summoned to the board room where my attorney, Mr. Tony Connors, would present our case. During a 10-minute presentation to the SFDRCISD Board of Trustees, Mr. Connors argued that the motive behind my reassignment was to retaliate against me for reporting illegal and unethical activities to the Texas Education Agency. Mr. Connors then told the SFDRCISD Board of Trustees that the evidence is overwhelming that the cheating occurred and continues to occur in the credit recovery and credit accrual programs at Del Rio High School and the Blended Learning Academy, respectively. During the presentation, I attempted to make eye contact with each board member; but not one would look me in the eye. I took this as a sign of guilt, but as we left the room I did not know what to expect.

We made our way to the auditorium to await the return of the board members from closed session. While we waited we discussed the expectations with our attorney. He said that he did not know what to expect. Finally, the board members returned. They addressed the grievances in order as they received them. For the first grievance, Board President Joshua Overfelt called for a motion. There was no motion put forth by a board member so no action was taken. My attorney said that this was a common tactic when the board did not want to publicly render a decision. But, he continued, this tactic results in the original Level II decision being upheld. He further stated, “I wouldn’t be surprised if they do the same thing with your grievance.” Then the Board took up my grievance petition. Once more, President Overfelt called for a motion. Board member Robert Chavira made a motion to uphold the Level II decision; Board Vice-President Cecelia Martinez-Lozano seconded the motion and then all seven members raised their hand and voted unanimously to uphold the Level II decision. The very same board members who were afraid to talk to me about the evidence I presented to them back in June of 2016, the very same board members who were afraid to look me in the eye as my attorney laid out the evidence of the cheating occurring in the credit recovery and credit accrual programs at SFDRCISD, these very same board members put their public bravado on display by enthusiastically raising their hands to deny my grievance.

The reader may be saying at this point, “What did you expect!” Yes, indeed. Although I had hoped for a different decision, living in Del Rio, Texas, a small town on the Mexican border, introduced me to the compadre system, a term that was unknown to me in Mexico. The compadre system combines nepotism and cronyism into a system that favors friends and family in awarding jobs, contracts, and privileges, most of which, are paid for by tax dollars. The reader of my story has already been introduced to numerous hiring decisions based on family connections: principals hiring their sons to be tutors, etc. This system extends to the board members as well. The SFDRCISD Board Secretary recently celebrated the dedication of a new SFDRCISD administration building named in her father’s honor; I could continue, but you get the idea. This system is reinforced across family lines through participation in fraternal organizations and other social clubs. The Superintendent and the SFDRCISD Board President are both active members of the same chapter of the local Lion’s Club, which, by the way, doesn’t allow female members. Loyalty, whether between friends or family, surmounts all other ethical considerations. As one “loyal” SFDRCISD employee said to me, shortly after finding out about my complaint, “Ms. Davis, shame on you for doing this to the district that gave you a job.” That seems to be the attitude in Del Rio. Loyalty demands that you look the other way. So, at this point, I knew one thing for sure: if the illegal and unethical activity was to cease it would have to be initiated and led by a state or federal agency.

My focus now turned to Austin and the Texas Education Agency. It had been three months since TEA closed its investigation, but the agency continued to hold on to its investigative findings. I tried to put a positive spin on the delay, thinking to myself that the substantive and substantial nature of the evidence necessitated that the agency take its time before issuing corrective actions and determining which educators to hold accountable. Then on April 4, 2017, my attorney called. Before we even had time to say hello, Mr. Connors, angrily emoted, “TEA closed your complaint.” What, I don’t understand! I tried to clarify what he was telling me. You mean after 13 months of investigation and another 4 months of departmental and legal review, TEA decided to simply dismiss it, like nothing happened. “Apparently,” Mr. Connors offered. Mr. Connors agreed that it was inexplicable; then, he said he was forwarding the TEA closure letter to me. The closure letter was surprisingly brief, which allows me to quote it in its entirety:

After a review of the allegations(s), evidence and documents received from the district, the TEA Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has determined that the district addressed the reported concerns that were within the scope of TEA. This concludes the SIU’s review of the matter and no further action will be taken.

What “evidence and documents” are they talking about? As the reader of this story knows, the cheating continued long after TEA received my complaint (November 20, 2015). SFDRCISD issued no new policies to address the cheating. In January of 2016, I had found 112 pages of handwritten answers to courseware credit recovery tests being used in the afterschool sessions of credit recovery. The dates of the course completion times for 2015-2016 showed that the number of students completing semester-long courses in suspiciously short times actually increased after TEA received my complaint. And finally, in September of 2016, I had documented and sent to TEA the credit recovery policies written by a SFDRCISD Principal that stated students were free to use any resource, i.e., internet, tutor, or teacher to complete the tests for their credit recovery and credit accrual courses. Despite all this, TEA said that the district “addressed the reported concerns.” From my vantage point, the only thing the district did to address the “reported concerns” was to remove me from the credit accrual and credit recovery programs at SFDRCISD and reassign me to teach 8th grade.

By this time, I had informed my attorney that we could no longer pay him; we just couldn’t afford it. He promised to continue working on a pro bono basis because of his conviction for our cause. On April 19, Mr. Connors wrote to AJ Crabill, the Deputy Commissioner of Governance for the Texas Education Agency, “to express our disappointment and disbelief in the conclusions reached” in the investigation. You can see the actual letter in the Documents section. Furthermore, Mr. Connors asked for the evidence supplied by the school district that led to the closing of the case, “so we can better appreciate TEA’s investigation and its conclusions.” Mr. Crabill answered Mr. Connors letter with a brief email that said the “evidence” that led to TEA’s decision will not be supplied to us. It is secret and will remain so. He continued that we were welcome to submit a formal Public Information Request (PIR) “with TEA or through the attorney general’s office to pursue an alternative opinion.”

A formal PIR was made to TEA that requested all documents and evidence that led to the closing of my case. On April 27, 2017, the Texas Education Agency filed a ruling request with Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, to uphold their decision to keep the information from the public. TEA’s legal attempt to suppress evidence incensed my attorney, as it did me, and as it should every justice-minded citizen. How can a state agency, that never once interviewed me, close a case based on evidence that it deems must not be made public? TEA’s sole reason for existing is to oversee “public” education in the state of Texas. Nonetheless, that is exactly what they did. Meanwhile, Mr. Connors penned another letter to Mr. Crabill of TEA. Once more, I have included the actual letter that Mr. Connors sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Governance for the Texas Education Agency. The letter, dated May 19, 2017, chastised the Deputy Commissioner and TEA for its lack of leadership, because when “educators cheat the way that was shown by this complaint, the students are robbed of an education, and the involved educators send the wrong message that cheating is okay.” Mr. Crabill did not respond to Mr. Connors letter. Once more, as I had done so many times, I waited. I waited for a response from the Texas Attorney General’s office and I waited for a responsible adult to stand up and say this behavior is unethical and unacceptable.

While awaiting the attorney general’s ruling, I submitted additional PIR’s to the SFDRCISD. Surprisingly, on June 16, 2017, I received a copy of the internal investigation completed by the district’s legal firm, Schulman, Lopez, Hoffer & Adelstein, LLP. I say surprisingly, because my attorney had been asking for the findings of the internal investigation for over a year; yet, his requests had gone unanswered. Why would they now accede to my PIR and send me the Investigator’s Report. Did they no longer fear TEA and felt secure enough to let me see it? Did they feel sorry for me? Frankly, it’s a mystery, because the report, which was easily rebutted, was obviously the work of an advocate and not an impartial seeker of the truth. For example, on page 4, the Investigator’s Report stated, “we began our investigation noting the subjective and assumptive nature of most of the” allegations. One of these “subjective and assumptive” allegations was that “one of the students earned 18 semester credits in the span of two months.” This refers to Student #237, whose course completion times are documented in the Student Case Study referenced in Year 2 of my story. The allegation is either true or false, not subjective or assumptive; furthermore, I provided the district with all the course completion documentation and I provided the district’s law firm with Student #237’s SFDRCISD Student ID#. They could have easily verified or falsified my allegation.

This set the stage for the rest of the report which went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss my allegations. The Investigator’s Report intimated that the course completion times could be explained by technical problems with the software, students guessing the answers correctly, and other easily falsifiable hypotheses. There are large sections of the report that were redacted. Given that my complaint concerned both attendance and academic fraud, I assume (though I am usually not the assumptive type) that the redacted portions address the investigation’s findings of attendance fraud. If true, that would indicate that the district had already concluded that TEA would not punish them for fraudulent credits obtained through credit recovery or credit accrual courses. On the other hand, attendance fraud is directly tied to funding, so the district and their lawyers were more circumspect and cautious in releasing their findings that addressed my allegations of fraudulent attendance reporting practices at SFDRCISD. Or perhaps, they simply could think of no creative way to respond to the attendance fraud allegations proffered in my complaint to TEA.

During my battles with the SFDRCISD and TEA, I discovered the website https://advocatingexcellence.org/, created by Jeremy Noonan, a former science and credit recovery teacher in Georgia. Mr. Noonan’s experience in credit recovery echoed mine in many ways and he too fought back. Mr. Noonan had turned his experience into a calling by becoming a recognized national leader on the academic abuses of online credit recovery programs. Jeremy was genial, kind, encouraging and supportive. He always lifted my spirits and encouraged me to keep fighting even when I was about to give up. By the time I contacted him, Mr. Noonan had already become a significant figure to educational journalists around the country. His research and experiences were referenced by educational think tanks around the country and he appeared in such well-respected publications as the Washington Post, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and SLATE. Mr. Noonan was a constant source of inspiration and information.

On June 30, 2017, the Texas Attorney General’s office released its ruling. It granted TEA’s request to keep the “evidence” from public view. The document that detailed the ruling said that “the submitted information at issue consists of privileged attorney-client communications.” Therefore, “the agency may withhold the submitted information at issue.” I was never notified of the decision, nor was my attorney; in fact, I did not even know of its existence until July 6, 2017. Ironically, I found out about the ruling through a public document search on the Texas Attorney General’s website. So that was it. I now had nowhere else to turn. On Monday, July 10, 2017, I went to the administrative offices of the San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District and resigned. I had fought against this injustice with every bit of strength and energy I had. And while I never found an ethical and responsible person with the power to put a stop to the cheating, I was secure in the realization that I had provided my children with the example that fighting for something that you deeply believe in is never a waste of time. Nonetheless, my children also learned the valuable lesson that assuming the role of a whistleblower comes with a price. Part of that price was to uproot ourselves and leave Del Rio. My husband, who is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Southwest Texas Junior College, accepted a transfer to its Uvalde campus, which is about 70 miles east of Del Rio.

On August 1, 2017, we made the move to Uvalde, Texas, and I tried to begin anew. I concluded that I would not reenter the teaching profession in the Texas Public School System. I tried to reevaluate what I wanted to do professionally, but mostly, I just tried to recover from three years of frustration and disbelief by concentrating on my roles of wife and mother. Then, on August 13, I received an email from Jay Matthews of the Washington Post informing me that he planned to do a story on me and my experience in credit recovery. A well-respected journalist and author, Mr. Matthews had written the seminal book on Jaime Escalante, the math teacher portrayed in the movie, Stand and Deliver. Recently, Mr. Matthews had become interested in the rise of online credit recovery programs around the nation and their association with rising graduation rates. After doing a story on Jeremy Noonan of educators4excellence.org, Mr. Matthews was introduced to my story and the documentation I had collected to back up my claims. Mr. Mathews was professional, courteous, and got to the heart of the story very quickly. In a bombshell, TEA said it has no authority to oversee credit recovery programs. In fact, Gene Acuna, spokesman for the TEA said, “TEA does not have the authority to review/approve [any] curriculum programs.” My first thought was, “Why didn’t you tell me this on November 20, 2015, when you received my complaint?” Why did you hold on to my complaint for a year and a half without telling me that credit recovery programs are none of your business? Why did you not mention this in the letter that officially closed my complaint? Why would it take being contacted by the Washington Post for you to finally reveal that the awarding of high school credit in the state of Texas is wholly at the discretion of the local school district?

On Sunday, August 27, 2017, the Del Rio News Herald, the local community newspaper, followed Jay Matthews lead by publishing a story on my allegations of cheating in the credit recovery and credit accrual programs at the SFDRCISD. I shared with them the same documentation and data that I gave to Mr. Matthews. I also made myself available to answer any questions. The article did yield more interesting comments by TEA. “According to DeEtta Culbertson, TEA information specialist, the agency has no policy regarding how independent school districts conduct credit accrual programs. ‘Although a teacher providing answers for a local test does not violate any rules, it does raise ethical concerns,’ she said.” Summarily, Ms. Culbertson stated that “there are no legal ramifications to cheating on credit recovery tests.” Disappointingly, the Del Rio News-Herald did their best to protect the school district from further embarrassment. The story remarked that the district hired a law firm to investigate the allegations, giving the impression that the law firm was an impartial and outside contractor, when in fact, the law firm is the very same firm that has represented the district’s interests for many years. Unsurprisingly, the story reported that the law firm found “no wrongdoing by the district.” The phrase “no wrongdoing” appears three times in the brief article. This is the very same phrase that the Superintendent uttered when contacted by Jay Matthews of the Washington Post. But Mr. Matthews did not fall for it. He verified everything through TEA before publishing his story and TEA never said that they found “no wrongdoing.” Then, remarkably, the story stated that the TEA found no evidence of wrongdoing on “credit -recovery tests.” I do not know if this was purposely added to protect the school district or if the reporter was fooled or confused. I just know that TEA never said this. I emailed the reporter and demanded to know the source for this statement. “If you have no evidence for this statement,” I said, “then I demand a retraction.” I received no evidence from the Del Rio News Herald to back up the statement and my request for a retraction went unheeded as well. So, the Del Rio News Herald, the same newspaper that has no problem posting pictures of misdemeanor-committing young adults from the wrong side of town in their weekly crime report for all to see, thought it appropriate to slant the story to protect the local elites—one more lesson learned.

My learning experience had supplied many valuable lessons. But the most important lesson is the one that is being disseminated throughout the secondary education system in Texas. At all levels, the message is clear: Cheating and Dishonesty leads to success. I fought against this. I did not want to believe that educational professionals would accept, embrace and actively participate in promulgating this adage. But they have. In my state, it begins with the Texas Education Agency. TEA has told school districts that you will not be burdened with oversight when awarding course credit. Whether it is lowering the bar in the classroom or using credit recovery and credit accrual programs to grant course credit, it is your decision. Even if, as was done in my district, you want to take the tests with/for the students that show proficiency of course content, we will not interfere. And the credit earned by that student will be equivalent to one earned by a student in a rigorous setting. It’s a great system for TEA administrators. They can point to rising graduation rates as cogent proof of their effective leadership, all the while, keeping their hands clean by letting the individual school districts do the dirty work of putting cheating boots on the ground. The Texas Education Agency has made the adage systemic: Cheating and Dishonesty leads to success.

For the past ten years, graduation rates have skyrocketed throughout the state. Texas now has one of the highest graduation rates in the country. SFDRCISD witnessed one of the largest increases in the state. In 2007, the graduation rate was 69.1%. By 2015 it had risen to 93.2%. During this same period, the percentage of students passing the SAT or the ACT at the college-criterion level decreased to 7.73%. But the administrators and board members of SFDRCISD were proud of their accomplishment. And why shouldn’t they be. The Texas Education Agency awarded SFDRCISD with a college readiness index of 80%. As constructed by TEA, one-half of the college readiness index is based on graduation rates. Twenty-five percent of the score is based on the 4-year graduation rate while another twenty-five percent is based on the number of students who graduate with college preparatory courses in Math, Science, et. al., the very same courses that are most prevalent in credit recovery programs and the very same courses where the cheating is most obvious. With this 80% college readiness index, TEA coronated SFDRCISD as the best district in the region for readying its students for college. Cheating and Dishonesty leads to success.

Teachers and administrators who learned this lesson and willingly submitted to its edicts have benefitted. I have already noted that teachers who followed the aggressive cheating practices set forth by administration were rewarded with the jobs they coveted. The Del Rio High School Vice Principal who oversaw the ACAP and credit recovery programs during my first year at the high school and who proffered the theory to investigators that the fast completion times could be explained by students guessing the answers was promoted to a Principal position. And the Principal at the Blended Learning Academy who rewrote the credit accrual guidelines to allow cheating and dishonest behavior was promoted to the position of Secondary Curriculum Coordinator. The school administrator who served as the Chief Instructional Officer for Secondary Instruction during my time in credit recovery is now the Chief Compliance Officer for Federal and State Accountability. And finally, what about the Superintendent who steered the ship through the rough waters of a successful coverup by deflecting blame from the school district. Well, on June 24, 2017, the SFDRCISD Board of Trustees awarded the Superintendent with a contract extension until 2021, which was accompanied with a $10,000 annuity. Cheating and Dishonesty leads to success.

Finally, the students themselves have seen this lesson up-close and personal. They know that they can learn nothing and be given credit for a course. Learning, as they have learned, is not part of the requirement for successful course completion. They have come to understand that everyone benefits when they complete the course with a passing grade. And they have witnessed the extreme lengths that teachers and administrators will go to make sure that happens. This lesson has been passed down from the Texas Education Agency, to local school district administrators, and finally through willing teachers on the ground. It is a lesson that will serve these students well if they ever decide to enter the education business in the state of Texas: Cheating and Dishonesty leads to success.

But the educational system is not a closed system. The effects of the current system that rewards cheating and dishonesty have many and profound ramifications that weave themselves into all aspects of society, and these threads do not lead to success. Most immediately, where do these students go upon graduation? Many if not most enter the community college and university system in the state of Texas. These students are either confronted with the fact that they must remediate, which is done at taxpayer expense, or be placed in a college-level class for which they are unprepared. Either option is fraught with frustration and failure. This puts pressure on community colleges and universities to continue lowering the bar to increase matriculation rates or risk the wrath of state politicians. In Texas, Governor Abbot mandated the 60x30 goal, that has 60 percent of Texas’ 25- to 34-year-old workforce achieving a postsecondary education credential by 2030. This is unreachable within the current system; therefore, to reach this goal the bar will have to be lowered even further.

My learning experience has taught me many truths, but mostly my three years as a secondary teacher in the Texas Public-School System has been confused with contradiction and irony. I have spent three years searching for responsible and ethical educators to stand up and say this is wrong. I have met many, mostly teachers, who believe as I do, but who lack the power or the will to effect change. Some of these educators leave the profession while others resolve quietly to live for the paycheck. However, I finally found an individual whose professional adage matches my yearning for a responsible adult to stand up against a system that promotes cheating and dishonesty as a pathway to student “success”. Ironically, this adage comes from none other than Mr. AJ Crabill, the Deputy Commissioner of Governance for the Texas Education Agency, whose actions, as seen in this story, are a contradiction of his words. The adage reads: STUDENT OUTCOMES DON’T CHANGE UNTIL ADULT BEHAVIOR CHANGES. Mr. Crabill—I couldn’t agree more.

#cheating #secondary education #high school #education #Graduation rates #credit recovery #academic integrity

0 notes

educator4academicintegrity · 7 years ago

Photo

Just like that.

Desmond Tutu knows! Have a great Black History Month! #NoBystanders

1K notes · View notes

educator4academicintegrity · 7 years ago

Text

My Learning Experience: Year Two

I spent much of the summer of 2015 collecting, organizing and cataloging the data and documentation that evinced the academic and attendance fraud which took place during the fall and spring semesters of 2014-2015. As I slogged my way through all the documents and data, I realized that the academic transgressions were far more numerous than I had imagined. It was going to take a tremendous amount of work to catalogue all the cheating; so, I made the decision to focus only on the most extreme cases. I then began to construct summaries of the data as well as course completion tables that all lead to the same inescapable conclusion: wide-scale academic fraud was taking place at Del Rio High School. The reader can judge for themselves, as I have provided for your perusal the same summaries and course completion tables that I sent to the Texas Education Agency. If you choose to pause and take a look, remember, these completion times correspond to semester-long courses. For those who wish to continue with the narrative, I will leave you with a few highlights. One student completed a semester of Chemistry in less than 2 hours; another student finished a year (2 semesters) of English in 8 hours.

As amazing as these results were, they pale in comparison with the efficiency with which students gained credit during the summer school credit recovery program of 2015. In the span of two months the credit recovery teachers of summer established course speed records that made their school-year counterparts jealous with envy. Well no, that’s not true. The summer school teachers were the same seasoned pros you came to love in year one of our story: they were all there to pick up a nice summer paycheck while providing the invaluable service of advancing students closer to graduation. A new speed record for completing a semester of Chemistry was established: 1 hour, 33 minutes, and 49 seconds. Wow, I’ve had lectures that lasted longer than that. Not to be outdone, another student completed an entire year (2 semesters) of Algebra II in 7 hours and 50 minutes. But the real star of the program was student #237. Ah, yes, student #237! I remember when we first met—in document form only. I still do not know who this individual is, but he or she was able to accomplish something most astounding. Student #237 completed 18 semester credits in less than two months. That is more than one-third of the credits needed to graduate from 4 years of high school in the state of Texas. With this track record, I assume he or she went forward and graduated college in less than a year. Sigh, we will never know. Nonetheless, Student #237’s tremendous feat is documented and the summary table is provided for your viewing pleasure.

All the data contained in the tables are backed up by thousands of pages of documents. All told, the online courseware documents numbered well over 10,000 pages. Throw in attendance records, emails, and sundry other documents, and it came to over 20,000 pages. Even though the evidence was overwhelming, I realized that I would need the advice of someone who was familiar with education rules and regulations and had experience dealing with the Texas Education Agency. This meant hiring an attorney. The search began and ended in July. Unfortunately, I was so busy readying the documents for TEA that I did not perform due diligence in finding a good attorney. My choice ultimately was swayed by a professional-looking web site. During our initial consultation, he told us (my husband and I) that my case was “substantial, important, and would attract significant attention from TEA.” He took our $1500 retainer fee and then ignored us. Why is it so hard (and expensive) to do the right thing? So, the school year of 2015-2016 began and the evidence was still not in TEA’s hands.

Then, on August 22, 2015, the Saturday before the start of school, the credit recovery supervisor sent all credit recovery personnel an email that contained the “Credit Recovery Guidelines and Procedures” for 2015-2016. What?! You mean we now have actual guidelines to follow; the previous year the only guidelines were the verbal directives proffered by my supervisor. Finally, it seemed as if my complaints and protestations had borne fruit. Maybe they had reconsidered and codified guidelines that would assess the students’ learning and knowledge. Maybe the delay caused by my absent attorney had been a blessing in disguise. Maybe there would be no need to proceed. Maybe they had seen the error of their ways and all would be forgiven. Yea, right! Nonetheless, I read the guidelines with eager anticipation. Most of the information pertained to student behavior and protocol. As I read, I kept asking myself, “Where are the guidelines that address assessment?” Finally, I saw a guideline that contained the word “test”. It said, “Every pre-test must be done without any additional assistance.” I thought to myself, what about the Posttests and the End-of-Semester Tests. There was no mention of those. So, I sent my supervisor an email that asked, “Does this policy also apply to Mastery Tests, Unit Posttests, and End-of-Semester Tests? My supervisor was prompt in her response, which she sent to all credit recovery teachers. Her email response stated, “The policy of no additional assistance applies ONLY to pre-tests.” By the way, putting ONLY in all caps was her idea. Wow, thanks; now I have another document to add to the TEA submission. So, my search for a new attorney was back on. But we will leave that for another time. Because you are now about to encounter a substitute teacher who would turn out to be one of the most villainous characters of our story.

I arrived for the first day of the 2015-2016 school year and it appeared that history was repeating itself. I was the lone teacher for ACAP. The two teachers who I had shared the classroom with the previous year had moved on to greener pastures. One had been rewarded with a classroom of her own; she was now a Del Rio High School English teacher. The other had also been given the job she wanted; she was now the district’s teacher for homebound students. My independence did not last long. My supervisor informed me that they had hired a long-term substitute teacher to help me with ACAP and Credit Recovery. The next day I met the substitute teacher. During her first week, she spent a great deal of time with my supervisor in closed-door meetings. I assumed that my supervisor was telling her about ACAP and the duties of a credit recovery teacher. It would not be long before I discovered that there was something much more sinister happening behind those closed doors.

One week after the substitute arrived we had our first ACAP staff meeting. We were a small group, just me, the substitute, and the ACAP Counselor who is here referred to as my supervisor. The substitute began the meeting by suddenly, without provocation or warning, announcing, “Ms. Davis does not do her job.” What?! What is she talking about!? She had been there only 5 days and was a substitute teacher! Then my supervisor, who seemed unfazed by the comment, said, “Oh, really. What do you have to say about that, Ms. Davis?” Then she began scribbling in her notebook. I looked at the substitute and said, “You never once talked to me about any concern you had. Why would you say this?” Then, as I sat there listening to the substitute and watching my supervisor write in her notebook, it came to me, almost as a flash. The substitute was not there to teach ACAP and Credit Recovery students, for she was not certified in any of the core subjects they needed to graduate. The substitute was a plant; she was put there for her ability to bully and harass. Maybe she was there to help my supervisor fill up her notebook; maybe she was there to get me to resign. I don’t even know if there was a grand design for her purpose in ACAP. But her meanness and nastiness went unchecked by my supervisor; and, if fate would not have stepped in, I probably would not have lasted to write this Memoir.

Roughly two weeks after our first ACAP staff meeting, another teacher joined the ACAP staff. She was a certified English teacher who had been transferred from the Blended Learning Academy. She was personable, funny and easy to talk to. I felt a sense of cautious renewal, but, with an emphasis on cautious. Four days after the new teacher’s arrival in ACAP, the substitute pulled off one of her disappearing acts. The substitute would sometimes leave the room for entire periods. I never knew where she went and very soon I stopped caring, for she was given free rein to do as she wished. On this day, however, soon after the substitute left, my supervisor appeared in the classroom and asked the new teacher to come to her office. Then they both left for my supervisor’s office. Awaiting their arrival was the substitute. My supervisor asked the new teacher to have a seat. Then, the substitute said her line, “Ms. Davis does not do her job.” My supervisor then asked the new teacher to confirm. She quickly said, “I haven’t been here long enough to confirm anything,” and abruptly left the office. The new teacher came back to the room, gave me a quizzical look, and then later told me the story. From that day forward, I had a co-worker who treated me fairly and gave no ear to false rumors. I finally had someone I could confide in. As a veteran teacher, the new teacher offered insight into the life of a secondary public-school teacher. She mentored and advised; and, she informed me of the environment at the Blended Learning Academy, and the story behind her transfer to ACAP.

The Blended Learning Academy is a non-traditional campus for grades 8-12 that “blends” credits earned through traditional classroom instruction with credits earned through credit accrual on the courseware system. ACAP, a credit accrual program, was included under the Blended Learning Academy umbrella. But there was a problem. The new campus that housed the Blended Learning Academy was not finished. So, even though ACAP was officially part the Blended Learning Academy, the program remained at Del Rio High School for 2015-2016. Confusing, yes. But the upshot is that the Blended Learning Academy principal was now the official supervisor of ACAP.

The lack of physical space and facilities during Blended Learning Academy’s first year of existence meant that the student population was confined to the 8th grade. The Academy’s mission was to take students who had been unsuccessful in middle school (largely because of behavioral issues) and place them in an environment that relied on smaller classes blended with computer-aided instruction. This noble mission led the new ACAP teacher to leave her position as an 8th grade English teacher at the middle school and accept a position as the English teacher for the 8th grade at the Blended Learning Academy. It was a decision that she would come to regret. She related to me that although the student population for each class was about one-half what it was at the middle school, she spent double the amount of time on discipline issues. She said that sending students to the office became a daily activity. She related one story in which a student told her to “Fuck off”. She sent the student to the principal’s office only to have that student return before the end of the period, without any penalty, laughing as he entered the room. Within a matter of weeks, she felt she could not take another day. She told me that she walked into the office of the principal, and said, “I’m leaving; I just can’t handle it anymore.” The principal tried to calm her but she remained steadfast and said that she would not work in that classroom another day. Not wanting to lose a veteran teacher, the principal asked her if she would accept a transfer to ACAP. She agreed.

In September, I concluded my search for a new attorney. Mr. Tony Connors, out of Austin, looked at the evidence that I had collected and agreed that this was very significant. We wrote another check for $1500; but unlike the first attorney, Mr. Connors began to work immediately on the required paperwork to file a complaint with the Texas Education Agency. Mr. Connors, who had previously worked for TEA, said that he had never seen evidence this substantial nor so well documented. He said it would send shockwaves through the district. He said that probably what would happen is that those educators who were cheating would be placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. Most school districts, he continued, would immediately try to correct the problem and punish the guilty parties to avoid the wrath of TEA. Finally, on November 20, 2015, my complaint was simultaneously sent to the Texas Education Agency and the Superintendent of SFDRCISD. I braced myself for the aftershocks.

Then, you know what happened? Nothing! During the weeks leading up to Christmas break, things continued as before. No new policies were forthcoming; teachers continued to do the tests with/for the students. No one was placed on administrative leave. It was as if nothing happened. I did notice that the principal and her sister backed off from me somewhat, but that was it. Returning from Christmas break these same administrators followed precedent and set up an after-school credit recovery program, in which the “angels” were hired to help students gain course credits on the online courseware. And trust me, they continued as before. I was confused. I formulated many hypotheses. Maybe administration was keeping it quiet to catch the teachers in the act of cheating and thus defer blame. But if that was true, why would the Del Rio HS Principal expose her son. It didn’t make sense. Were these people really that determined to cheat no matter what the cost?

On January 8, 2016, I came into work a little earlier than usual. I walked into my room and turned on the lights. Immediately, I noticed a large book bag on my desk. I opened it and saw multiple spiral notebooks and loose-leaf pages filled with handwritten answers to the online courseware Unit Posttests and End-of Semester Tests. Upon a cursory reading, it appeared that all the courses were represented. Realizing the sensitive nature of the material, I made the decision to copy all the pages, each of which contained no instructional material—just the answers. Then I waited for the owner to come and claim his or her bag. Around 11:30 AM, a likely suspect appeared; it was one of the “angels”. She said that she had left her bag in the room from the previous afternoon session of credit recovery. She asked if I had it. I said yes. As I gave her the bag, she said over and over, almost muttering, that she had it out only for some formulas. She continued to defend her possession of the bag’s contents, but I told her that I did not need an explanation. With that, I gave her the bag. The next day, I sent electronic copies of the pages to TEA. I thought to myself that should seal the deal. I mean, I have provided evidence that the cheating continues even after they have been reported to TEA. It shouldn’t be long now.

Yes, it would take much longer. I assumed at the time that TEA would lead the investigation. But that is not how it works. The TEA first allows the school district to investigate itself. Many school districts hire an outside investigator, usually an outside law firm, to investigate. But my school district, the SFDRCISD, thought it best to keep the investigation in-house. It delegated the investigation to Schulman, Lopez, Hoffer & Adelstein, LLP., (hereafter referred to as Schulman and Associates), which is a law firm that has represented the district for many years. Forgive my ignorance, but I always thought that a lawyer’s professional responsibility is to pursue his or her clients’ interests. Were they really intent on performing an impartial investigation? I don’t mean to disparage the legal profession but I had my doubts. Initially, Schulman and Associates requested to interview me; they also demanded that I give them the evidence I gave to TEA. So, on December 10, my attorney sent the district’s attorneys the Course Completion Reports that I had compiled, accompanied with the courseware documents (student names had been redacted) that showed test and course completion times. I also provided them with the emails in which I was directed to count students present even though they were absent. In redacted form, it came to 2,289 pages. I even provided them with a Table of Contents and a Student Number Key that associated each assigned student number with the district’s Student ID. That way, if they wished to talk to Student #237, for example, they could. Upon receiving the information, Mr. Schulman told my attorney that due to the clarity of my submission there would be no need to interview me. That was great news. Perhaps, my initial judgment of attorneys and their responsibilities had been too harsh.

Returning from Christmas break, the tone of the district’s legal counsel had changed. I was told that I would be interviewed by Ramon Medina, a legal investigator employed by Schulman and Associates. On January 28, 2016, I sat down with Mr. Medina to answer questions concerning my allegations. After several benign questions, Mr. Medina asked me about the technical problems associated with the online courseware. I told him that there were no problems with the software, but that the computer hardware was not the greatest. I told him that these problems were rare and sporadic. He returned to the “technical glitch” theme again and again. I did not understand, at the time, his fascination with software and hardware issues, but I answered his questions the best I could. Mr. Medina, a former director of the audit division at TEA, commented that the complaint report that I provided to his law firm and TEA was one of the most thorough complaint reports he had seen in all his years at TEA. Mr. Medina was civil throughout the interview; then, he said he had one last question. Contained in his question was the accusation that I had not prepared the report myself. As I left the interview room, I knew that the district and their legal counsel had chosen to fight the allegations and I also knew by the tone and content of Mr. Medina’s last question, really an accusation, that I had been underestimated. That’s fine. As an immigrant to the United States, who had been speaking English for only about five years, it was not the first time that someone had underestimated me, and it would not be the last.

The advent of the Spring semester also witnessed a makeover of the ACAP staff. The new teacher, who had transferred from Blended, accepted a position as a 9th grade English teacher. I knew that she had wanted to return to the classroom, so I was happy for her. But also, I was sad to see her go. To fill the void, the principal hired a college student whose parents were teachers at the high school. Feelings of isolation once more began to take root, which were exacerbated when our absentee boss, the Principal at the Blended Learning Academy, announced that she was delegating full authority to my former supervisor, the ACAP Counselor, whom she referred to as a friend and someone who had her complete trust. Here we go again.

The substitute wasted little time seizing the opportunity. Returning from my lunch period on January 20, 2016, student #273 informed me that she had reported the substitute to a Del Rio High School Counselor. The student had told the counselor that she did not like the environment in the classroom; specifically, that the substitute was always bullying me and talking bad about me when I was not in the classroom. I reported this to the principal at the Blended Learning Academy. Other than sending me an email in which she said that she was “concerned about allegations of harassment, bullying, and retaliation directed at [me] by certain individuals employed at Del Rio High School,” she did nothing. I encouraged her to talk to the high school counselor; I told her that the student wanted to speak with her. But she took no action on either front. Perhaps she talked to the ACAP Counselor who defused any concern she may have had; perhaps she was just too busy with the Blended Learning Academy campus to care; I don’t know.

I continued to document and keep a record of everything from the cheating to the substitute’s volatile outbursts. I did not bother making reports to my supervisor. I concluded that would be a waste of time. On March 24, student #261 showed me a letter that she sent to the Chief Instructional Officer for Secondary Education. The letter charged the substitute with bullying, cheating, and inappropriate contact with male students. After reading the letter, I asked the student if she was sure of the charges contained in the letter. She said, absolutely. I asked if I could have a copy of the letter. She agreed and I made a copy. Then I waited. Was I surprised that nothing happened? Not really; I had come to expect the unexpected. So, I continued to do my job, simply knowing I had catalogued another document. Then on April 1st, the substitute had an outburst that was especially disruptive to the class and involved another teacher. A Del Rio High School Vice Principal asked that I submit a written report of the April 1st incident. I did so; after which, we met for a follow-up conference. I told him that the April 1st incident was just one of many such incidents involving the substitute. He asked if I could provide him with a report detailing other incidents. I did not tell him that I had been writing down and documenting everything. I simply said that I would be happy to provide him with such a report.

On April 3, 2016, I sent the Vice Principal a report that provided a timeline and description of various incidents involving the substitute. The three-page document contained fifteen entries. One of the shorter entries dealt with student #261’s letter. The Vice Principal forwarded the incident timeline to the Chief Human Resources & Instructional Support Officer, who requested that I meet with her to discuss its contents. At our meeting of April 12th, she said that she had read my report and that student #261’s allegation that the substitute had inappropriate contact with male students was a red flag for her. She did not seem too concerned with the other charges, namely the substitute’s bullying behavior in the classroom or her proclivity to cheat by giving select male students the answers to their tests. I informed her that the student’s letter had been sent to the Chief Instructional Officer for Secondary Education 3 weeks ago. Surprised by my statement, she said she would try to locate the letter. She then asked that I send her an email to provide her with further details concerning what I know about the allegations contained in the student’s letter. The next day I sent her the requested details and on April 15, 2016, the substitute was placed on administrative leave. I guess she found the letter. But the big question is why did the Chief Instructional Officer for Secondary Education choose to suppress this information. Were he and the substitute friends? Did he know that she was a plant? Did he think that because it involved a female teacher and male students that it wasn’t important? Again, I am at a loss to understand the motives or behaviors of many administrators within my district.

Still feeling isolated, I began to talk to classroom teachers who were out of the purview of the credit recovery program. When I introduced myself as a credit recovery teacher, I sensed a feeling of frustration. I encouraged them to tell me of their experiences with credit recovery. What I heard simply confirmed my fears and reinforced my resolve to speak out. Teachers told me that they had students who would sit in class all semester, do nothing, and I mean literally, do nothing, and then fail the class; whereupon, the student would be placed in credit recovery. Within a matter of weeks that student would be back in class, revealing to all that they had passed the class. This frustrated many teachers, and rightly so. Teachers told me that students knew that the easiest way to pass a class was through credit recovery. This became a self-perpetuating system. I decided to email the department heads to inform them of the lack of academic rigor in credit recovery. Most ignored my email, but two department heads responded, confirming what teachers had told me previously. I tried to reach out to other department heads who failed to respond to my email, but with little success. One department head and I had a conversation in which she initially welcomed my revelations. Then, the very same week, I went to talk to her again. Before I could get within a personal distance she waved me off and said, “I don’t want to talk to you.” I respected her wishes. Her fears were well founded. One of the two department heads who supported my efforts to clean up credit recovery would inform me at the end of the school year that they had been replaced as department head and, they believed, it was directly attributable to their support of my efforts. I felt bad, but I assured them that as soon as TEA completed their investigation everything would be better. Unfortunately, this was a promise of which I had no control to keep.

With the substitute’s departure came replacements. Two new tutors joined the ACAP and Credit Recovery staff at the end of April. I saw this as an opportunity to improve the academic credibility of the credit accrual and credit recovery programs. On May 9, I sent an email to the new ACAP tutors with a list of expectations, one of which that urged the ACAP team to behave “ethically, respectfully, and professionally…” I met with both tutors individually. I encouraged them to follow the credit recovery guidelines and to use our time with the students to teach them the material. Early signs of hope were quickly followed by signals of discouragement. Within a matter of weeks, they were following the example set by others in credit recovery. These tutors were both young, new graduates of two different education programs. When and where did they conclude that cheating in the name of diploma attainment was acceptable? Did they acquire this belief in college or before? Or, was it simply a manifestation of first job insecurities being reinforced by social and professional pressure to please those in authority? I wish I had the answers to these questions. I just hope that these two individuals are not representative of our future educators.

On May 23, to meet the end-of-year rush in credit recovery, ACAP hired another tutor. He was another college student and, more importantly, the son of my supervisor, the Principal at the Blended Learning Academy. The very next morning, my supervisor issued a memo directing that any staff member—tutor, substitute, etc.—can sign the report that is turned in for credit accrual or credit recovery. The next day, I sent an email to my supervisor expressing my concern. I informed her that one of the new ACAP tutors had signed a report in which student # 302 did not finish a Unit Post Test. While, I assumed it was just an oversight due to the new tutor’s lack of experience in credit recovery, I argued that as the only certified teacher in ACAP, I should review all reports before they are turned in for credit. My supervisor did not address my suggestion and kept the directive in place. On June 1, 2016, I discovered that the same tutor had changed 22 failing grades in the courseware system to passing. These grade changes corresponded to just one student. I assumed there were more, but I did not have the time nor energy to investigate. I sent an email informing my supervisor of the grade changes. I received no acknowledgement from my supervisor concerning my email and the tutor continued signing reports that were turned in for credit accrual and/or credit recovery.

The last week of the school year of 2015-2016 in credit recovery was just as crazy and hectic as my first-year experience. Students were coming in with just a few days left in the semester saying that they needed numerous semester credits to graduate. I told each student that I would do my best to help them, but very soon they became frustrated by my slow pace. It seemed that they had heard different stories and expected different results. One student came on the last day before the graduation roster was complete asking me to help them gain credit in Geometry. I told this student the same as I told the others, but when they saw that I would not directly feed them the answers they became upset, grabbed their referral, and said, angrily, “Forget it!” But there were success stories. One student, whom I never met, showed up in credit recovery on May 31, needing to complete a full year (two semesters) of Algebra 2. The next day, June 1, 2016, the student received credit in both semesters. Just in time; commencement was on June 3—one more success story at Del Rio High School.

Administration was proud of its success. The previous year, Del Rio High School had set a record with 93% of the class of 2015 graduating from high school in four years. Progress had been substantial since 2007 when Del Rio High School graduated just 69.1% of its class. During this same period graduation rates had also been rising in Texas. In 2007, public schools in Texas graduated 79.9% of its students in four years. By 2015 that rate had increased to 91.7%. Were the numbers a direct result of the pervasive new and powerful instrument known as on-line credit recovery? Or were these results attributable to other known or unknown causes. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer. But I can tell you that there is a direct correlation with the rising graduation rates and the use of online credit recovery.

Despite online credit recovery’s correlation with rising graduation rates nationwide, I still thought our program was different. I mean, again, we were directed to do the tests for and with the students. Surely, this was not right. I thought that designed correctly, an online credit recovery program would still allow districts to raise graduation rates, but what was happening at my district was just out-and-out academic fraud. And I continued to ask where was the Texas Education Agency in all this. I mean, another graduation was taking place and TEA had not responded to my complaint. I felt almost like one of the SETI researchers looking for signs of intelligent life in the universe: TEA—Is there anybody out there? Despite this, I continued to believe that if ethical and responsible people were informed of what was happening it would stop. So, with this hope and ideal in mind, I decided to contact the SFDRCISD Board of Trustees directly, thus circumventing the Superintendent, and hopefully bringing resolution and closure to my commitment to stop the cheating at the San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated School District.

On June 2, 2016, I drafted and sent to the Board an email in which I detailed the academic fraud in the credit recovery program at Del Rio High School. I have provided the actual email sent to current SFDRCISD Board President Overfelt for your inspection. In the email, I provided documentation and a personal account of the cheating that was taking place. I told them of the scope of the problem. I related my belief that it was possible to design a credit recovery program that was both academically sound and helped students gain the credits needed for graduation. I encouraged them to use their authority to stop the cheating because we were, after all, sending the clear message that cheating brings success. I can’t think of a more destructive example a teacher could set for his or her students. I ended by requesting to meet with them so that I could answer any questions they might have. Five of the seven board members ignored my email. The other two members (both newly elected) were quickly told by the Superintendent to cease all direct communication with me, an order they dutifully followed. The very people who were elected to protect the interests of the community’s schoolchildren were afraid to talk to me. Wow! So, I continued my search for ethical and responsible people that had the power to put a stop to the cheating. Unfortunately, these people did not sit on the Board of the Trustees at the San Felipe Del Rio CISD.

Commencement ceremonies took place on June 3, 2016. It was another successful year. The class of 2016 had a graduation rate of 92.2%. Likewise, it was a successful year in credit recovery. Students continued to complete courses in record times. Once more I have included the actual course completion tables and summaries that I sent to TEA for the 2015-2016 school year. Physics, Chemistry and Math continued to lead the list of subjects in which credit recovery students excelled. Who says Math and Science are difficult?

My pleas to stop the cheating had now exhausted the ears of supervisors, two principals, the superintendent, and all seven members of an elected school board. It was now up to TEA, the Texas Education Agency to act. But why were they taking so long? Over the summer recess I pondered this question with guarded optimism and I continued to hope that my search for ethical and responsible educators that had the power to stop the cheating would not end in vain. I felt like a child whose experiences were leading them to the conclusion that Santa Claus may not exist. As a new educator, I was beginning to doubt that the public-school system in the state of Texas cared about academic integrity. Nonetheless, I waited, still with a strong belief that the Texas Education Agency would step in and stop the cheating. In year 3 of my learning experience, however, I finally found out that there was no Santa Claus.

#Credit Recovery #academic integrity #high school

0 notes

educator4academicintegrity · 7 years ago

Photo

“I’m sorry, Jeannie, your answer was correct, but Kevin shouted his incorrect answer over yours, so he gets the points.” Artist: Joe Dator

97 notes · View notes

educator4academicintegrity · 7 years ago

Text

My Learning Experience: Year One

I was born and raised in Mexico by a loving family. I am a mother of two great girls, 8 and 15 years old, and happily married. I have always deeply valued education and the opportunities it provides. I have admired the United States since I was a child. I always thought of the United States as an ethical and moral nation, a country that values diversity, a country that protects human rights and free speech, and a country that promotes education as the primary factor for the personal growth, social well-being, and success of its citizens. So, when I came to the United States I decided to get certified to teach math in high school.

In the summer of 2014, I had finally completed the last mathematics class in a post-baccalaureate program that would qualify me to teach mathematics at the secondary level. On Thursday, August 21, 2014, I sent an email to the Director of Human Resources for the San Felipe Del Rio CISD, to see if there were any openings for a mathematics substitute teacher. She responded quickly to my email and asked if I could come see her tomorrow. I was surprised by her prompt response and her request to meet with me. I had only inquired about a substitute position. The next day, Friday, I met with her and she told me that the district needed math teachers; she asked if I would be interested in teaching full time as a mathematics teacher at Del Rio High School. I said yes. As I left her office, I thought to myself that all the years of struggling to learn a new language and the countless hours of study required to take advanced mathematics classes had finally paid off. I was going to be a teacher in the United States. I was elated.

I couldn’t wait to get home and tell my family. I had chosen education as a profession because of the high value I had always placed on education. I had immigrated to the United States from Mexico, in part, because of the educational opportunities it afforded my children. As the mother of two girls, I wanted to give them all the opportunities to make a good life. Furthermore, after immigrating to the United States, I had married a teacher. My husband, Richard Davis, is an instructor of mathematics at Southwest Texas Junior College. So, when I received the call on Saturday to say that I had been hired as a teacher at the Board Meeting the previous evening, I was happy and excited.

I began my teaching career on August 26, 2014. I arrived at Del Rio High School early. I remember entering my classroom for the first time. It was rather barren, but with a little work I felt I could brighten it up. The room had computers facing the wall in a U-configuration with my desk at the front of the room. I was surprised as I was expecting a room of desks facing to the front, like you would find in a traditional classroom. I had little time to process this information, for I was immediately met by my supervisor. She introduced herself and led me to her office, which was directly across the hall from my room, where she informed me of my duties. She told me that I had been hired to teach mathematics in a program known as ACAP. The Alternative Credit Accrual Program (ACAP) is designed to allow students who have dropped out to return and finish high school by completing their missing credits via a credit accrual program.

My supervisor, whose official title was ACAP Counselor, informed me that my duties were to help students gain high school credit by passing tests on an online courseware, which is used to impart course content and to assess the student’s mastery of the material through various testing instruments such as Mastery Tests, Unit Posttests, and an End of the Semester Test. She told me to assist students on all assignments and to help them on all the tests. I felt disappointed because I wanted to teach students the necessary skills to pass the tests, not to do the tests for the student, which I consider cheating. But I thought that maybe this is the way public education works in the United States. I did not know what credit recovery was before I started, so I did my job as I was told. As a math teacher, I confined myself mainly to helping students with math. Although I helped them through the tests, I did take the opportunity to explain each problem thoroughly.

These first few months would be my happiest time as a teacher. I helped students with their mathematics coursework and witnessed them learning. I enjoyed my students immensely. My class consisted of a diverse population of students. Besides students from the ACAP program, I had students from the Migrant Education Program, as well as traditional high school students who were earning credits through the Credit Recovery Program. Many times, a student would thank me for teaching them a mathematical concept; for example, they would tell me that for the first time they understood how to find a vertex or that now they knew how to solve a quadratic equation. These are the things that make the teaching profession worthwhile and satisfying. But, I felt helpless to assist the students in other courses, specifically science courses such as Physics and Chemistry. I tried my best. I would get out the Physics textbook and try to learn the material so that I could teach it to them. But, as any teacher knows, learning takes time. And it was this dichotomy between expedience and learning that would lead to conflict.

My supervisor began bringing me to her office to tell me to go faster. I told her that I was going as fast as I could but that it took time to explain mathematical concepts adequately. She seemed unmoved by my words. Then, in November 2014, two other teachers were assigned to my room. We got along well at first, but I did notice that our teaching styles were different. While I continued to take the time to teach the course content, these teachers would sit down with a student, read a test question and then tell the student the correct answer, or what they thought was the correct answer. My thoughts came fast and furious. Firstly, how did they know Physics and Chemistry. One was a Social Studies teacher and the other was an English teacher. I was amazed at their ability to correctly answer test questions in Chemistry and Physics. I was especially confused how they knew the answers to Physics questions that were largely mathematical in context. Because it soon became apparent to me that neither of them knew how to do mathematics beyond basic algebra. Secondly, why did they not use these tests as teaching opportunities; instead, they chose to just recite answers and, unfortunately, the students did not seem to mind. By this method, with no explanation of the problem, the student could finish a test and thereby a course at a much faster rate. I felt it my duty to inform my supervisor about what was happening.

Meeting with my supervisor on December 11, 2014, I expressed my concern to her that I witnessed other teachers in my room giving students the answers for their online courses without any explanation of the problem. I told her I did not agree with this practice. I said that I want to teach math, not just give them the answers. She remained quiet. I then said that my career goal is to teach math in a classroom. She responded that I would not be a successful classroom teacher because, in her words, I can’t speak proper English. This was the opening shot in the war that would soon engulf my professional life and forever alter my view of the teaching profession. At the time, I thought that I could convince administration that what we were doing was not in the best interests of the students and their education. The reader must forgive my naiveite. I had been a teacher for only three months. Nonetheless, I readied myself for battle. Oh yea, one more thing: my supervisor’s sister just happened to be the principal at Del Rio High School. Fasten your seat belts!

Returning from Christmas break, my supervisor began her offensive. On January 16th, 2015, she wanted me to sign an Intervention Plan that indicated areas in which I needed to improve. I disagreed with the assessment and refused to sign. I appealed to a vice principal, telling him that the assertions made by my supervisor in the intervention plan were not true. After further discussion, he eventually convinced me to sign an amended version later that day. I asked him why he wanted me to sign the Intervention Plan. He said that he had tried to defend me to the principal, saying “I have no problem with Mrs. Davis.” He then related to me that the principal—his direct supervisor—said, “You go and do it! You go talk to [my sister] and do it!”

In February, I received a request—via my supervisor—from the Director of Human Resources, asking to meet with her “to review certification.” I arrived at her office at 8:00 AM on February 16, 2015 to discuss certification. Her first words were, “We have issues” with your work. Surprised, I said, “Issues?” She then said that my supervisor had informed her that I could not control my class. I responded that this was not true and that she was welcome to look at all my walkthroughs and my evaluations. I informed her that I had all documentation that pertained to my performance in the classroom and that nothing indicated the things she stated. She seemed perplexed and told me to continue to keep documentation. I told her that my supervisor seemed to have a problem with me but it was not because of the reasons stated. I would have told her the real reason why my supervisor had tried to isolate me but I did not trust her to believe me since she had accepted my supervisor’s evaluation of me without one shred of evidence.

At this point I knew I was isolated. I thought of quitting but instead I chose to fight. I’ll leave it to the reader’s judgment to determine if that was a wise decision. I began to demand and scrutinize documentation to better protect myself. Since the beginning of the year, my supervisor had given me verbal directives to count students present who were absent. So, I began keeping my own attendance records and I asked my supervisor to send me emails that affirmed her directive. Surprisingly, she obliged and sent me the emails. I then began to download reports in which students had completed a test or an entire course in an amazingly short time.

In April, the son of the principal (and thus the nephew of my supervisor) began working full-time as a tutor in credit recovery. Now I was not only surrounded by a culture but a family. It felt like a scene out of one of the Godfather movies. But there I was, engulfed by educators who thought little of giving students answers to tests, counting students present who were in fact absent, and punishing anyone who questioned them. Yes, I had learned a lot in my first eight months as a public-school teacher. Unfortunately, it had little to do with academics or learning theory.

My refusals to participate in the shortcuts to success, i.e., giving students the answers to their tests without any explanation or evidence of learning, intensified their attempts to isolate and discredit me as a teacher. I still find this perplexing. I mean, I was doing the tests for/with the students. Their main complaint seemed to be that I was not supplying the answers fast enough. One attempt to isolate me led to a direct confrontation with the principal. On April 28th, at the end of the day, my supervisor told me that she and the other two teachers in ACAP would be absent for the next two days. My supervisor had chosen them to attend a conference on the future of the ACAP program. I sent my supervisor an email asking if ACAP would be provided with any substitutes for those days. This simple request would set off a wave of anger that would ripple all the way to the principal’s office.

I arrived in my classroom the morning of April 29th to find that two substitutes had been assigned to my room. I informed the substitutes of their duties and the day began. It was a day like any other until the beginning of the 8th period. The principal came into my room, admonishing two students to stop talking. She then began yelling at the entire class, warning them that if they did not finish their courses they would have to attend summer school. I was helping a student when her tirade began, so I turned to face her and give her my full attention. Very quickly, she turned to me and yelled, “And you Ms. Davis, just because the other teachers are not here does not mean you can let the students do what they want. You have two substitute teachers there. Put them to work!” Then she left. One of the substitutes turned to me and said, “Ms. Davis, who is that woman!” I said, “That is the principal.” A look of disbelief flashed across his face; then, he said, “How can she treat us this way?”

Yes indeed, I thought the same: “How can she treat us this way!” I was not a twenty-something, fresh-out-of-college kid when I took this job. I had performed many jobs in the past, everything from fast food worker to pharmaceutical sales representative. But I had never been treated this way by a supervisor. After consulting with my husband, I felt that I had to file a formal grievance against the principal. I did not take this step lightly. I knew there would be repercussions. But I felt I must preserve my professional dignity. While my husband was supportive of the decision, my co-workers looked at me with disbelief. Perhaps they knew what I would soon find out: my supervisor’s vengeful streak was apparently a family trait that she had picked up from her older sister.

The grievance hearing was set for May 12, 2015. Administration did not even have the patience to delay the retaliation until after the hearing. On May 11, my current position—Mathematics (ACAP) Teacher—was posted under the open positions section of the SFDRISD Employment page. I brought this up in the grievance hearing. The principal assured me that it was a mistake. The Chief Instructional Officer for Secondary Education, who presided over the grievance hearing, stated for the record, “I can assure you that as soon as we walk out of here, we are gonna go back and correct” the error. The job remained posted until the closing date of May 26, 2015. Later, after I was not replaced, it occurred to me that this was not a direct threat against me; in fact, it was a message to all district employees, especially teachers, that this is what happens when you file a grievance. Oh yea, I almost forgot. One of the remedies granted by SFDRCISD in the complaint: “Granted: You will not have any retaliation because of this complaint.” Even I did not believe that one. See, I am learning.

Two days after the grievance hearing, May 14, 2015, I was summoned to appear before two Vice Principals. Upon entering the office, I was told that I had been brought there for a very serious matter. My online courseware password had been used to grant credit to a student in six credit recovery courses, among which was an entire year of English IV. I was asked to explain myself. I told them I did not know who stole my password, whether it was the student or someone else. I assured them that I would never willingly participate in a scheme that would grant high school credit without some evidence that learning had taken place. I encouraged them to investigate the matter thoroughly because I wanted to know who had done this. Although the student vehemently denied stealing my password, I was told never to discuss this with the student and let them investigate the matter. I continued to follow up on the progress of the investigation. I was given no information. I was later told that the investigation had found nothing, that the credits in question had already been granted to the student, and that state guidelines would not allow the credits to be taken away. So just like that, the matter was dropped. The student accumulated six semester credits in a matter of weeks and the senior graduating class welcomed a new member; everyone was happy. Ah, the bliss of the educational experience.

As the graduation deadline loomed, the pressure to get students credits so they could graduate accelerated. But I, the old stick in the mud, continued to question the online courseware reports that showed students completing tests in unbelievable times. Whether it was a student completing an End-of-Semester Geometry test of 44 questions in 15 minutes with a score of 93%, or a student completing an Algebra 2 End-of-Semester test of 33 questions in 11 minutes with a score of 88%, I remained the lone dubious voice in credit recovery. When I would say I can’t approve this course credit unless I see the student’s work, they would roll their eyes, take the report to another certified math teacher and get them to sign. Perhaps, they took it to a veteran teacher who had learned how to play the game; perhaps they took it to a new teacher whose fear compelled them to sign. I do not know; I never found out. But the credits awarded in credit recovery rose to tremendous levels. During 2014-2015, over 1000 semester credits were awarded through credit recovery, mostly to seniors who needed to graduate.

They devised strategies to obviate my resistance. They began holding after school sessions—where the teachers were well paid—to operate freely without my presence. For these sessions, they brought out the stars of the program, those whom my supervisor referred to as the “angels” of credit recovery. These teachers even volunteered their time to meet with students at a local pizza restaurant to help students finish their courses. The results speak for themselves. One student finished an entire semester of Geometry during one Saturday pizza session, culminating with a truly stunning performance on the End-of-Semester Test: 44 questions in 11 minutes and 20 seconds with a score of 84%. I know that replicas and drawings of pizzas are used to teach geometrical principals, but what these teachers (none were math certified) accomplished is truly miraculous; they should teach their technique in education programs.

On May 19th, I discovered the secret to these teachers’ scientific prowess. Throughout the year, when a student had trouble with Chemistry or Physics, my supervisor would direct them to one of these teachers, saying, she is very knowledgeable in those subjects. At 10:45 AM, during this teacher’s conference period, a student gave me a notebook containing handwritten answers to all five of the Integrated Physics & Chemistry Unit Tests. The student then asked if I could give it back to the teacher in question. I made a copy of the handwritten answers and then gave the notebook back to the teacher as requested. The next day, May 20th, I was moved to another room. The “angels” could now operate freely for the remainder of the semester. Two days later, I was summoned to the office of a Vice Principal. He informed me that my husband, who had been volunteering his time the entire school year to tutor high school students, would no longer be allowed on campus. It's a good thing that they had promised in the grievance hearing that there would be no retaliation; just think how bad it could have been.

As I finished the year in my new room with my allotted students (all had finished their course work and there was nothing to do except babysit), I began to contemplate informing the Texas Education Agency of my experience as a credit recovery teacher in the San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District. Nevertheless, I did use this time to connect with the students I been given. Since they were all finished with their courses, we had time to talk. I asked them about their future. I mentored, I advised; it was a nice respite from the battles that had been raging. It also provided me with one final story to share with the reader. My supervisor had ordered that my students remain in the classroom at all times; they were not even allowed to go to lunch. She said if they want to eat they would have to bring their lunch. So, I promised the students that I would buy them pizza for the last day of school. That day arrived and I made good on my promise. As we were eating our pizza, my supervisor showed up outside my door, motioning for me to come outside. I did so. She informed me that I was violating school policy by feeding the students and that I could be reprimanded. “But,” she continued, “I will let it go with a warning.” What a relief, I don’t know what a reprimand would feel like.

The year ended. My first year as a Texas public school teacher was officially over. But the exciting part of the story is just beginning. I decided to use my summer vacation to collect and catalogue the evidence that would expose the cheating scheme that was taking place in the credit recovery and credit accrual programs at Del Rio High School. Surely, once the Texas Education Agency (TEA) knew what I knew, they would ride to the rescue and truth and justice would prevail. Yea, I know what you’re thinking: She still has a lot to learn. Yes indeed; in fact, my education was in many ways just beginning. Tune in for Year 2.

#academic integrity #credit recovery #graduation rates #secondary education #high school

1 note · View note