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 8^th 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 8^th grade English teacher at the middle school and accept a position as the English teacher for the 8^th 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 9^th 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 1^st, 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 1^st incident. I did so; after which, we met for a follow-up conference. I told him that the April 1^st 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 12^th, 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.