Follow Up on Choice Course Program

Note to readers: the following is a second letter to BESE in response to an email by the Executive Director of BESE explaining the policy of the Board for the implementation of Choice Courses for the 2013-14 school year. The email from the Executive Director is reprinted below my letter. Ms Dastuge has recently informed me that the email was actually prepared by the DOE team that is charged with implementing the Course Choice Program. 
Dear Ms Dastugue and BESE Members:

I have received the responses to my questions to BESE about choice course regulations. It is my understanding that President Dastugue directed Ms Pozniak (BESE Executive Director) to answer my questions according to BESE policy as it will be applied to choice courses for the 2013-14 school year.

I was disappointed by the lack of substance and accountability of BESE policy on choice courses as interpreted by Ms Pozniak in her answers to the questions. My major concern is that the application of BESE policy described does not seem to require students to attend a minimum number of hours of instruction in order to receive credit for a choice course. While Ms Pozniak states at the beginning of her response that the choice courses will emphasize achievement over attendance, her answers reveal that students may get full credit and the provider may get full payment for a choice course even if there is no evidence presented at the end of a choice course that adequate learning has taken place.

At the beginning of her response to my questions Ms Pozniak characterizes seat time or class time as archaic. I do not believe Ms Pozniak is qualified to dismiss school seat time as “archaic”. She states that choice courses will emphasize learning outcomes over length of instruction. If seat time were archaic, we would not need the mandatory school attendance law. If seat time were archaic BESE would not have a policy that denies course credit to students who have more than the minimum number of allowed unexcused absences. If seat time were archaic, our district attorneys and judges could call off all efforts to require parents to send students to school on a regular basis. The fact is that the lack of accountability by some parents and poor student attendance is one of the greatest root causes of under-performance by many of our students. There is a direct relationship between students who miss many days of school and the low performance of such students. In addition, Act 2 specifies that quality course providers in their application to BESE must specify the length of each course. That implies that students are expected to attend or participate for a particular number of hours specified for a course.

I believe the interpretation of BESE policy relative to choice courses by Ms Pozniak if implemented in the way she described will result in a lowering of standards and a decline in student performance by many students who participate in such courses. I believe such a policy will encourage fraud and abuse in the use of MFP funds by some of the choice course providers. Such abuse could dwarf the abuses seen recently in the chaotically implemented voucher program this school year. I respectfully request that BESE carefully consider the issues raised in my questions on choice courses and adopt policies that will insure safeguards of taxpayer dollars and insure that students receive adequate instruction from each choice course.

In her response Ms Pozniak seems to assume that BESE will not require minimal instructional time for any of the choice courses. Apparently BESE will simply take the provider's word that students have completed their assignments for the course as adequate evidence to award credit for a course. Since the law allows course providers to receive the remaining 50% of their funding based on students completing a course on time, taxpayers can expect that many students may not be held to minimal standards for completion. If regular attendance or participation for a certain number of hours will not be required, who in the Department of Education will check to see if a student who has sporadically participated in a choice course has actually completed the required assignments of a choice course?

Ms Pozniak's responses verify my fears that the course provider can stipulate that a student has completed a course and receive full payment even if the student cannot demonstrate reasonable knowledge of the course or even if the student fails to pass the end of course exam. How would such a system reward achievement over attendance? In such a case, how can BESE justify full payment for the course? How does this system emphasize learning outcomes over length of instruction?

In addition, Ms Pozniak's responses gives no assurance that any part of the 50% initial course payment will be refunded to the state and the local school system even if the student drops out or is expelled soon after enrollment in a choice course. This creates an incentive for choice course providers to use aggressive promotions to get students to register for such courses even if the student may drop out with minimal participation in the course.

Ms Pozniak indicates that if a student takes a choice course for which end of course testing is required by BESE and then fails the end of course test, the state will still make full payment to the provider based upon the provider's claim that the student has completed the course. Does this system reward achievement? BESE should not waive minimum course attendance and also waive minimal performance.

I must recommend that BESE, consider adopting a strict policy relative to choice courses that require the standard number of hours of instruction in order for the student to receive course credit and for the provider to receive full payment for a choice course. This rule is particularly important if the student does not pass the end of course test required by BESE. Otherwise there is insufficient accountability for use of our taxes.

Ms Pozniak dismisses the question about choice course providers being required to document attendance or participation of students by simply stating that choice courses comply with the objectives of the compulsory attendance law. I believe this is an incorrect interpretation of the law and is not acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since Act 2 stipulates that each choice course must have a length, BESE should have a firm policy that requires choice course providers to actually document the number of hours of student attendance or participation for each choice course whether it be an on-site course or a virtual course. I believe that even in the case of a virtual course delivered over the Internet, it is possible for the provider to monitor the participation time of students.

Ms Pozniak also states that when a student takes a credit recovery course from a choice provider and that provider reports to the student's home school that he/she has passed the course, the home school must grant the student credit even if the student does not pass the end of course test for that course. This is not acceptable. What is the point of taking a credit recovery course if the student still does not have satisfactory knowledge? How does this reward learning outcomes? BESE should not award full payment to a choice course provider for a credit recovery course if the student cannot pass an approved end of course test.

I believe that any lesser requirements by BESE will result in the raiding of critical MFP funds allocated to local school districts and will make a mockery of accountability. I will be happy to appear before BESE and further clarify my concerns and recommendations on the issue of choice course regulations.

Sincerely,

Michael Deshotels

Zachary, Louisiana

The response to my questions from Ms Pozniak are reprinted below.

Mr. Deshotels,

I am sending this response on behalf of Penny Dastugue.

Sincerely,

Catherine Pozniak
Executive Director
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education


Course Choice will provide families with unprecedented choices – down to the
course – to prepare students to succeed in college and careers. Courses will be
aligned to the expectations of post-secondary education and the jobs that await
students after high school. Under the program, the measure of quality will be
student achievement, not just attendance.

* Will choice course providers be required to deliver a certain number of
clock hours of instruction in order for a student to receive one Carnegie unit
of credit and for the provider to receive the agreed upon tuition for one
Carnegie unit?
* Could choice course providers offer courses that require different amounts
of instruction time for different courses that earn one Carnegie unit of credit?
* Will there be a certain number of hours the student in a virtual class
must participate in order to receive credit for the course?
* Could a virtual choice course provider substitute an end of course test as
validation that a student has completed a virtual choice course instead of
requiring the student to “attend” or participate in a certain number of hours of
instruction?
Course Choice uses a performance-based funding model and providers have the
option to implement a competency-based model to award credit. Course Choice
moves beyond the archaic “seat-time” model, which rewards attendance over
achievement, to a new model which emphasizes learning outcomes over length of
instruction. School districts also have the opportunity to waive
“seat-time/clock hours” (Bulletin 741--Louisiana Handbook for School
Administrators with the exception of §907, Secondary--Class Times and Carnegie
Credit).

To earn credit, students must demonstrate mastery of the grade-level
expectations, just like traditional schools. Also like traditional schools,
students can demonstrate mastery by earning a passing score on a standardized
statewide assessment or end-of-course exam, providing a portfolio of work or
completing the required assignments of the course.

Students who are behind in credits can accelerate their progress toward
graduation by completing blended courses, which combine online and face-to-face
instruction. Students will be able to progress through a course at their own
pace, moving through the content as they master standards grouped into modules,
clusters, or units. Providers can use multiple conventional methods, including
assessments, research projects, and presentations, to demonstrate mastery of
course standards or competencies to earn credit toward graduation,

Unlike traditional schools, providers are only paid when a student completes a
course. Providers are paid 50% upon enrollment of the student and 50% upon
completion of the course by the student.

* Could a choice course provider be approved for accelerated choice courses
where students who can demonstrate mastery of a course by taking a test would be
allowed to complete the course in a shorter period of time than what is normally
required for a Carnegie unit of instruction? If the answer to this question is
“yes”, would the Choice course provider still receive the same tuition as if the
course required a standard number of hours of instruction.
The same funding model applies to Course Choice providers and school districts.
Both Course Choice providers and school districts earn funding when a student
demonstrates mastery in an accelerated course.

* Suppose a student taking a choice course drops out soon after starting the
course and no longer participates in a choice course. Will the choice course
provider be required to reimburse the state for any of the initial funding?
* Suppose a choice provider expels or otherwise terminates a student enrolled
in a choice course soon after the course begins, will there be provision for
return of any portion of the tuition?
Under the law, Course Choice providers will receive 50% of funding for the
course upon successful enrollment and 50% of funding upon successful, on-time
completion of the course. Course Choice providers are penalized 10% if a
student completes the course late, receiving just 40% of the second installment.

Course Choice policy will allow an introductory period which allows students to
register for the class, review course materials and start initial coursework.

* Suppose a student takes and completes the required number of hours of
participation in a choice course and receives a failing grade from the choice
provider, will there be any provision for refund of any of the tuition?
* Suppose a student takes and receives a passing grade for a choice course
for which the state requires end of course testing and the student fails to
receive a passing score on the state test. Will there be any provision for any
refund of tuition?
The same policy applies to Course Choice providers and school districts. Like
school districts, Course Choice providers receive funding when a student
completes a course. Also like school districts, students do not have to earn a
passing score on a standardized end-of-course exam to receive full funding for
the course.

* Suppose a student takes and passes a credit recovery course from a choice
provider, and the student is tested on the course by his home school following
the completion of the course and fails to make a score that is acceptable to his
local school system for receiving credit for this course. Is the student's local
school system still required to give the student credit for such a course? Will
the choice course provider be allowed to keep the tuition?
Under state law, school districts must award credit for courses completed by
students through Course Choice and those credits must count toward the
requirements of a diploma.

* Will choice course providers be required to take attendance roll for
students attending choice courses, particularly when the student is attending a
course provided at a site provided by the course provider? If roll is taken and
the student is found to be absent without excuse for more than the minimum
number of days required by BESE for public school attendance, will the student
still be allowed to receive a passing grade on the choice course?
* In the case where a choice course provider is providing a virtual or
internet delivered course so that the student participates in a choice course
from his/her home, will the choice provider be required to take a participation
roll each day the student is supposed to be receiving instruction?
Course Choice complies with the objectives of Louisiana’s compulsory attendance
law.

* What action would the DOE take in a case where there is no evidence
provided by the virtual provider that the student actually participated in a
minimum number of hours of instruction in a virtual course?

Under state law, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will conduct a
thorough review of the Course Choice providers after one year in the program.
If the academic performance of students enrolled in a provider’s course does not
meet rigorous standards, the provider will face consequences, including
probation and/or removal from the program.

* Are choice course providers allowed to refuse admission of any students to
a choice course when the enrollment limit has not been reached who have been
classified by their local school system as eligible to take the choice course in
question?
Course Choice providers must accept students who meet the pre-requisites for the
course (such as, Latin I before Latin II). Providers cannot refuse eligible
students if space is available in the course.

* Would a choice course provider be allowed to test a student wanting to
enroll in a choice course and by that means find that the student is not
qualified for or prepared to take the choice course in question and thereby deny
the student admission even if the student has met all other prerequisites for
admission to a course?
Course Choice providers must accept students who meet the pre-requisites for the
course (such as, Latin I before Latin II).

September 4, 2012
Questions about new choice courses:

Potential Abuse of Choice Course Program

My readers are certainly aware by now that I believe there is much potential for abuse of taxpayer funding of the Choice Course Program included in ACT 2 of the 2012 legislative session. I am so concerned about this that on September 4, I sent the email below to all BESE members. I have received a response from BESE president Penny Dastuge promising that answers to my questions will be forthcoming. I am encouraging all my readers to study these issues carefully and share your concerns not only with BESE but with your legislators.

Questions about new choice courses:
Dear BESE member:
The State Department of Education is now receiving proposals for quality choice courses for the 2013-14 school year as stipulated in Act 2 of 2012. It is my understanding that BESE must approve all ChoiceCourse Providers by January 1, 2013. I have reviewed the information on the LDOE web site for Choice Courses
and Choice Course Providers and I have several questions and concerns about the implementation of this program. I would suggest that BESE adopt proper guidelines for this program to insure that our students get good solid instruction and that tax money is used wisely. My questions are as follows:

1. Will choice course providers be required to deliver a certain number of clock hours of instruction in order for a student to receive one Carnegie unit of credit and for the provider to receive the agreed upon tuition for one Carnegie unit? Could choice course providers offer courses that require different amounts of instruction time for different courses that earn one Carnegie unit of credit?
2. Could a choice course provider be approved for accelerated choice courses where students who can demonstrate mastery of a course by taking a test would be allowed to complete the course in a shorter period of time than what is normally required for a Carnegie unit of instruction? If the answer to this question is “yes”, would the Choice course provider still receive the same tuition as if the course required a standard number of hours of instruction.

Act 2 stipulates that choice course providers will receive 50% of the agreed upon tuition for each course immediately following the enrollment of students in such courses. The remainder of the tuition is to be paid to the provider at the end of the course. I have the following questions about funding issues:

1. Suppose a student taking a choice course drops out soon after starting the course and no longer participates in a choice course. Will the choice course provider be required to reimburse the state for any of the initial funding?
2. Suppose a choice provider expels or otherwise terminates a student enrolled in a choice course soon after the course begins, will there be provision for return of any portion of the tuition?
3. Suppose a student takes and completes the required number of hours of participation in a choice course and receives a failing grade from the choice provider, will there be any provision for refund of any of the tuition?
4. Suppose a student takes and receives a passing grade for a choice course for which the state requires end of course testing and the student fails to receive a passing score on the state test. Will there be any provision for any refund of tuition?
5. Suppose a student takes and passes a credit recovery course from a choice provider, and the student is tested on the course by his home school following the completion of the course and fails to make a score that is acceptable to his local school system for receiving credit for this course. Is the student's local school system still required to give the student credit for such a course? Will the choice course provider be allowed to keep the tuition?
6. Will choice course providers be required to take attendance roll for students attending choice courses, particularly when the student is attending a course provided at a site provided by the course provider? If roll is taken and the student is found to be absent without excuse for more than the minimum number of days required by BESE for public school attendance, will the student still be allowed to receive a passing grade on the choice course?
7. In the case where a choice course provider is providing a virtual or Internet delivered course so that the student participates in a choice course from his/her home, will the choice provider be required to take a participation roll each day the student is supposed to be receiving instruction? Will there be a certain number of hours the student in a virtual class must participate in order to receive credit for the course?
8. What action would the DOE take in a case where there is no evidence provided by the virtual provider that the student actually participated in a minimum number of hours of instruction in a virtual course?
9. Could a virtual choice course provider substitute an end of course test as validation that a student has completed a virtual choice course instead of requiring the student to “attend” or participate in a certain number of hours of instruction?
10. Are choice course providers allowed to refuse admission of any students to a choice course when the enrollment limit has not been reached and who have been classified by their local school system as eligible to take the choice course in question?
11. Would a choice course provider be allowed to test a student wanting to enroll in a choice course and by that means find that the student is not qualified for or prepared to take the choice course in question and thereby deny the student admission even if the student has met all other prerequisites for admission to a course?

I offer the above questions as a taxpayer who is concerned that my tax dollars for education are not wasted or otherwise used by unscrupulous individuals for personal profit without providing proper services to our students. I would very much appreciate a response from BESE on all of the questions above as soon as
possible.

Sincerely,
Michael Deshotels

More and More Testing; Diminising Returns

Most of our non-educator education reformers believe that the primary purpose of K-12 education is to get all students ready for college. The high school Redesign Commission under the direction of previous Superintendent Pastorek several years ago adopted a goal that most students would graduate by completing the college prep Core 4 curriculum. (See my post of 1/29/2010) That's also why State Superintendent John White has decreed that starting this year all 8^th through 11^th graders in public schools will be required to take the ACT (See the Louisiana ESEA Flexibility Request page 54).

 

A few educators have warned that college prep for all is a serious mistake. We believe that not all of our student population can and should be prepared for college. We believe that scheduling all or most students in college prep courses results in a watering down of instruction. When more than half the class is not ready for Algebra, Geometry or Advanced English, the teacher ends up teaching only the minimum needed to get students to pass the end of course tests. As a result the true college prep students do not get the rigorous course content they need and most are bored to death.

 

The non-college bound students are hurt even more by this system. They struggle to get through the Core 4, and some have to take credit recovery courses to try to graduate on time. They have no time to take vocational courses that could allow them to pursue a valuable career. These students barely graduate from high school with no salable skills and very little chance of succeeding in college. Some that attempt college end up dropping out with a huge load of college loans and still no career. The reformers then simply blame teachers and administrators for not pounding square pegs into round holes.

 

The push for college for all has been the policy in Louisiana for several years.

How successful has Louisiana been in preparing all students for college? ACT test averages for all states were released last week for test takers in the 2012 school year. Louisiana students scored an average of 20.3. The Louisiana Department of Education put out a press release claiming improvement for our public school students over last year and a narrowing of the achievement gap. One important item that was not mentioned in the LDOE press release is an analysis by the ACT experts concluding that only 17% of Louisiana students met the benchmarks that would predict success in all major categories of college course work.

 

ACT testing administrators also published a 5 year listing of average scores for each state. The 2012 score for Louisiana students is exactly the same as the average score of 20.3 in 2008. So if one looks at the most recent 5 year period, Louisiana shows no overall increase in the average ACT score. The 5 year period covers the last part of the administration of Paul Pastorek, the non-educator guy who set us on this course.

A complicating factor in using ACT scores to estimate improvement in public education in Louisiana is the fact that scores are averaged for all students taking the test including both public and private school students. It is impossible to know whether a gain in the average is due to public school students or to the fairly large number of private school students taking the test. The State Department of Education however, is claiming that the flimsy one tenth point improvement this year in the overall average means that public schools are improving. I hope that is true, but I would first like to see a breakdown showing separate averages for public and private schools.

I participated in a meeting of the High School Redesign Commission a few months ago, where the group was informed that the State Department of Education will start requiring all high school students to take the ACT and that 25% of the all important School Performance Score will be based on the ACT average score. Some of the Commission members grumbled that this would not give the high schools time to set up special ACT prep courses. But not wanting to seem to be against this latest reform, they dutifully voted to endorse the new testing scheme. So it looks like many more of our teachers will be singing the Test Teacher Song. (Click on the link and you'll see what I mean.) 

It used to be that high schools in addition to producing literate and well rounded citizens would prepare students for either vocational/career work or for entry into 4 year colleges. Now the goal has been carefully reshaped by our non-educator reformers so that schools are supposed to produce adults who are College and Career ready.  The reformers are telling us that if we achieve the goal of college prep, we will also automatically be preparing students for careers that require less than a 4 year college degree. The problem is there are only so many hours in the school day. That's why many school systems have been forced to sacrifice many of their vocational-technical programs to allow more time for the Core 4 curriculum.

No other industrialized country attempts to prepare all its students for college. They know that the modern work force needs skilled and vocational workers just as much as it needs college educated workers. Why do our school reformers insist on doing exactly the opposite of what the most successful countries are doing?

It is ironic that business leaders have been telling the Louisiana Workforce Commission that what they need are skilled workers in many jobs that do not require a college degree. That's why one element of the Jindal reform legislation will now allow high school students to leave their home campus and attend vocational courses by private providers. The problem is most of these kids are not able to go in two directions at one time.

I believe that forcing students who are not suited to, or have no interest in college prep to take such courses is very bad policy. It is discouraging and damaging to the students and guarantees that our public schools will continue to look like failures. For educators it's more and more testing with diminishing returns.