Credit Recovery-Be careful!

Remember the old saying, “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is?” I think we have to be careful when it comes to credit recovery policy.

In the October meeting of the Board of Regents a policy was approved to move forward with new options for credit recovery in New York.  Credit recovery is generally a program to award credit for students who have taken (completed the seat time) and failed to receive credit for a course.  Of late, some schools have begun to use online programs such as Nova Net for credit recovery.  Nova Net is an online program with programmed modules which students complete at their own pace.  In many states, these programs are NOT supervised by a certified teacher; “Facilitators’ (sometimes aides) are used to supervise the students. 

Why do districts like these programs?

First, they allow for a few students to work on one or more subjects at the same time without the need for a class or specific teacher instructing them—They just work through the program.  Second, they are generally aidable and are significantly less expensive than summer school.  They are also run during the school year if needed.

As of this writing, these programs still fall under the rules for awarding course credit in NY.  (seat time—certified teachers, etc.) They may be used by a teacher as a tool or part of a course.  I have seen nothing to date to indicate that they may be run by someone other than a certified teacher in the same manner as courses.  Seat time requirements for students who have already completed the course are more flexible.  We know NYSED is looking at new regs specifically to deal with credit recovery per se—these current rules may change. Click here for a look at the October meeting policy proposal which was approved.

j0234704

We need to be careful here…

Although I understand the concept of credit recovery, and believe it makes sense in certain instances, to roll credit recovery out as an alternative to summer school may create some new problems. If NYSED goes the way of other states allows these programs to be “facilitated” by folks other than teachers in the subject area, we run the risk that students will get credit for completing tasks (i.e. completing the program) versus actual learning. In some courses it is a huge mistake in my opinion to give credit without satisfactory mastery of content.  For example, students who fail Global 9, and are awarded credit via credit recovery instead of more meaningful instruction in summer school, (because it is cheaper), and move into Global 10 may not have mastered sufficient material to pass the Global 10 regents exam. We award them credit but then they drop out possibly because they can’t pass the state assessments.

Case in point–I currently have two students who were passed into my US History class via credit recovery over the summer (in lieu of summer school), failed the Global 10 exam, and now are in a US class with no additional instruction to help them get through the Global 10 exam.  If those students were put back in a Global 10 class, (which would’ve been easier for them as it is the second time around), they would have a real chance at passing the Global 10 exam and could move confidently into US History. Instead, they now face two regents exams with no support for one.

Students need to learn something to graduate!  

We must be careful that we are not tempted to award credit based on task completion in online credit recovery . These programs generally provide one lesson on any given topic. If a student fails to master that lesson their option is to repeat it again, or the “facilitator” may give them “hints” or pass them through. (I have completed NovaNet training and the trainer gave us three options for students—do it again, give them info to help them pass the test or just push them through.) Those of us who teach know that we must present material in many different ways in the course of instruction for learning to occur. Simply placing students in front of programs such as NovNet, with no meaningful instruction by a certified teacher in the content area will result in task completion but not necessarily sufficient learning for the next phase of the system.  We solve one problem, and create another. 

In my book, anything that runs “automatically”, is not instruction.  (Remember—differentiation—all that stuff?)  We need to be careful. We need to think about where these programs fit, (and I do believe they fit in some instances), and where they don’t.

The same things must be kept in mind when we are talking about online learning generally.  Any virtual education must include direct instruction by a certified teacher, differentiation—etc! I support what I do with my students– a hybrid model!  Students need to  learn what they need to move forward. 

If I just show videos all day long in my class with a short mastery quiz following each, moving students through the program, I would be deemed a bad teacher.  Look at these programs carefully- they are tempting, for sure. In some cases they may be too good to be true!

Be careful.  We solve one problem and create another.