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 8th grade 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 Citizens for Excellence in Public Schools (CEPS) 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 60×30 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.