Is “credit recovery” as bad as they say?

Adam Tyner, Ph.D.

Fordham Institute Fly Paper

7.25.2024

Summary of "Is 'credit recovery' as bad as they say?" by Adam Tyner, Ph.D.

In "Is 'credit recovery' as bad as they say?" Adam Tyner examines the effectiveness and integrity of credit recovery programs in American high schools. These programs, which allow students to regain lost credits through online courses, have been criticized for their low rigor and potential for misuse. A working paper by Carolyn Heinrich and colleagues provides a detailed analysis, particularly focusing on an online Algebra I credit recovery course.

The State of Credit Recovery Programs

Credit recovery programs enable students to complete computer-based modules, taking quizzes and assessments to earn high school credits they previously failed to obtain. Unlike traditional methods such as repeating a class or attending summer school, these programs have become increasingly popular due to their perceived efficiency. However, critics argue that the quality of these courses is questionable.

Key Findings of the Study

Heinrich’s team analyzed 1,408 assessment questions from an online Algebra I credit recovery course, categorizing them by type and using Bloom's taxonomy to evaluate their cognitive demand. The results were concerning:

• Assessment Quality: 83% of the questions were multiple-choice, and over 90% required no higher-order thinking such as analysis or evaluation. Only a few word problems demanded complex cognitive tasks.
• Ease of Cheating: 91% of the questions could be answered through a simple Google search, with many answers readily available online since 2015. Students retaking unit exams could review all previous answers, making it easy to pass without understanding the material.

Lack of Regulation

The study highlights lax state policies on credit recovery. Few states regulate these programs, with New York being the only state with comprehensive rules, including requirements for student-teacher interaction. The American Enterprise Institute’s 2019 survey found minimal regulation at the district level, further compounding the problem.

Recommendations for Improvement

Heinrich and her colleagues propose several measures to address the issues in credit recovery programs:

• Improved Assessments: Developing better assessments that truly measure student understanding and learning.
• In-Person Proctoring: Mandating in-person proctoring to curb cheating and ensure academic integrity.
• State-Level Auditing: Conducting random audits of students' performance to assess the extent of superficial learning and cheating.
• District-Level Rigorous Assessments: Implementing separate, rigorous assessments at the district level to ensure that credits awarded reflect genuine learning.

Case Study: Jeremy Noonan

The article also discusses Jeremy Noonan, a whistleblower in the Paulding County School District in Georgia. Noonan exposed how his district provided test bank questions with easily searchable answers and raised awareness of these issues with various authorities. Despite his efforts, the problems were not addressed, leading him to resign and go public.

Conclusion

Credit recovery programs, as currently implemented, prioritize increasing graduation rates over genuine student learning. Without substantial changes, such as rigorous assessments, in-person proctoring, and robust state regulations, these programs will continue to fall short of their promise. The study underscores the need for a comprehensive overhaul to ensure that credit recovery programs effectively support student success.

For further reading, the full article can be accessed at Flypaper.

Original Article

SOURCE: Jennifer Darling-Aduana, Carolyn J. Heinrich, Jeremy Noonan, Jialing Wu, and Kathryn Enriquez, “Failing to Learn from Failure: The Facade of Online Credit Recovery...,” Working Paper (June 2024).

------------------------------

Prepared with the assistance of AI software

OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (4) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com