Inside John Freshwater’s Classroom

The controversy surrounding John Freshwater prompted school officials to post a “room monitor” in his classroom. A family that, at the time, remained anonymous had made allegations against him of teaching religion and burning a student during a science demonstration.

Freshwater has maintained that the only thing he is guilty of is having his personal Bible on his classroom desk. His attorney was so confident of this fact that he called the room monitor, Deborah Strouse, as a witness for the defense.

(Freshwater taught science for 21 years at Mount Vernon Middle School.)

Strouse’s testimony at Thursday’s hearing sounded like she was endorsing Freshwater for teacher-of-the-year. This despite admitting being prepped by the school board’s attorney, David Millstone, in preparation for her testimony.

Upon questioning by Freshwater’s attorney, Kelly Hamilton, Strouse explained an incident where she was told to “remember who you work for.” Strouse had expressed anxiety about testifying to Dr. Lynda Weston, director of teaching and learning. Weston’s response, according to Strouse, was to “remember who you work for.” Strouse took this to mean she was to remember that she was “working” for the students.

While a monitor in Freshwater’s classroom, Strouse said that she did not hear him speak or do anything that was inappropriate. There was no mention of religion. She did see some religious items in the classroom: several Bibles, a Colin Powell poster, and a bag with some religious items concealed inside. Strouse said that Freshwater never drew attention to the items.

During the six weeks that Strouse was in Freshwater’s classroom, she typed 26 pages of notes onto her notebook computer.

She detailed everyday activities in the classroom. How Freshwater greeted students as they came to class. His handling of a problem student or one that needed, in her words, “TLC”—tender loving care. The way in which he made sure to follow up with any student who did not know an answer to an in-class question. And how he managed to get students to say, “I love science.”

Strouse said that she was even learning a lot of science in Freshwater’s class—and that it was not just because she was in class with him five periods every day. She talked at length praising Freshwater’s abilities as a science teacher. Her enthusiasm over the things she was learning during those six weeks spilled over into her conversations with her husband. “What did Mr. Science teach you today?” Strouse’s husband would ask her.

During a class on cell theory, a student brought up the subject of evolution. The student said, about what they were discussing, “This raises a red flag about evolution.”

Freshwater guided the conversation away from that topic. “I would love to spend some more time on that one, but we are moving on,” Freshwater said, according to Strouse.

Strouse said that she later mentioned this incident to Bill White, middle school principal. She expressed to him that she thought that this “red flag” would have been an opportunity for Freshwater to express his religious beliefs.

None of the students had a reaction to Freshwater’s moving on, nothing to indicate that they were not expecting that response from him, Strouse said.

Hamilton’s questioning of Strouse also attempted to tackle one of the more puzzling reasons the school board is attempting to fire Freshwater: Freshwater taught too much to the students.

When the school board voted unanimously last summer to start the process of firing Freshwater, one of the reasons they gave was that he taught additional material that was not part of the eighth-grade content standards. This teaching that went beyond the grade level was “including, but not limited to, thermo dynamics, the periodic table, the big bang theory and the creation of the universe.”

Hamilton asked Strouse to read aloud the school’s mission statement.

“Mission Statement: The Mission of the Mount Vernon City School District is to provide, in cooperation with the larger community, a quality education for all students while upholding a standard of excellence in curriculum, staff, facilities, achievement and conduct, and to graduate individuals empowered to be self-motivated, lifelong learners and responsible citizens.”

Hamilton asked Strouse if teaching that went beyond preparing students for the OAT test was prohibited anywhere in the school’s mission statement. Strouse said no.

One of the things Strouse had put in her 26 pages of notes was that Freshwater gave a lesson on metals and alloys involving a “penny experiment.” This lesson would have been part of the sixth grade content standards. She gave it special emphasis because the OAT test was over by that day and the students would not benefit from any additional teaching on it—at least not on a test.

She described the “penny experiment” as something that helped the students become engaged in science. But she also questioned its worth since it was no longer testable information. Under further questioning by Hamilton, Strouse decided there was nothing wrong with Freshwater doing the “penny experiment.”

Hamilton asked Strouse what was the best method for knowing the effectiveness of a teacher. “The best method to know how well they were taught is the OAT test,” Strouse said. Freshwater’s class had a passing rate of 77 percent on last year’s OAT test, Strouse said.

(According to Bill Oxenford, who testified earlier, Freshwater’s class scored higher than any of the other eighth grade science classes at the Mount Vernon middle school.)

(The Freshwater termination hearing is taking place in the Knox County Service Center.)

Additional statements by Strouse include:

· No knowledge that any of Freshwater’s students had to be re-taught.

· During the 07-08 school year no one was required to submit lesson plans.

· Eighth grade teachers are required to teach everything on the “sixth-eighth grade band” because of the OAT test.

· The poster with the words “In God We Trust/ With God All Things Are Possible” was encouraged to be displayed by the school—and thus was permissible.

· The “Living Bible” on Freshwater’s desk was not clearly visible; Strouse had to look for it to find it.

· Teachers do sometimes bring in materials that are not supplied by the school.

· Freshwater never referred to the Bible on his desk to his class.

· When she wrote “Bible on display” in her notes, she only meant that the Bible was present, not that Freshwater drew attention to it.

· Freshwater asked her what the difference was between having his personal Bible on his desk and having the Bible from the school’s library in the room.

· She had no knowledge of the Tesla coil experiment.

· Knows of only hearsay complaints against Freshwater.

Strouse said that as a teacher, she was jealous of Freshwater. He made every person feel important. He was able to connect a science concept to the things the students would bring up in class. Strouse said that students will work harder if they know the teacher believes in them.

.

For more on the controversy, read “Shame on The Columbus Dispatch.”

Shame on The Columbus Dispatch

This is a response to The Columbus Dispatch editorial of January 7, 2009, titled “Teaching moment.”


Implicit in the opening of the Dispatch’s editorial is that the rights of the Mount Vernon middle school science teacher, John Freshwater, are a waste of taxpayer money.

The Dispatch concluded that Freshwater is guilty of the allegations against him—and his attorney has not even started his defense.

Although the Dispatch acknowledges that Freshwater is “entitled by state law” to the hearing that is now underway, the Dispatch dismisses that the outcome may be in Freshwater’s favor.

I understand that an editorial necessarily contains opinion but even then there are rules of ethics that apply. According to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, even analysis and commentary must not “misrepresent fact or context.”

Also according to the Code of Ethics, a journalist should “Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.”

The Dispatch uses information from the report done by H.R. On Call, Inc. as if it speaks with finality on the controversy. This is despite that Freshwater’s attorney has called the reliability of that report into question.

The Dispatch credits a statement, in paragraph six of the editorial, to Freshwater that makes it sound as if Freshwater has said he has burned marks onto students. Nowhere in this editorial does it clarify this by reminding the reader that Freshwater’s position is that he has not done this. In the words of Freshwater, on August 4th 2008, “I have never, never, branded or burned a person.”

(Video of John Freshwater addressing the allegations against him.)

The Dispatch stated, as one argument against Freshwater, that “A high-school teacher testified that she often had to re-teach the basics of evolution to students who had been in Freshwater’s classes.”

However, the Mount Vernon News of January 7, 2009, stated that in the testimony the day before, by the owner of HR On Call, Thomas Herlevi, “There was no empirical evidence that high school teachers had to ‘reteach’ Freshwater students.” This is important because the HR On Call report contained “testimony” by a teacher alleging the need to re-teach students. The Dispatch editorial does not say where the testimony they allege came from—it may have been from the report by HR On Call.

The Dispatch wrote that a “high-school teacher” was re-teaching Freshwater’s students “for fear that they would fail that part of the state proficiency test.”

Interestingly, the Dispatch itself published, the day after the editorial, that science teacher Bill Oxenford testified at the hearing that Freshwater’s students “scored higher than the other science classes despite having the higher number of special needs students.”

The editorial, however, says that Freshwater has a “demonstrated disregard for science” which “disqualifies him to teach in public schools.”

A teacher who has students with the highest scores is not someone with a disregard for the subject that he teaches.

The Dispatch says that another one of the reasons it believes Freshwater to be disqualified to teach is “his poor judgment with the electrical device.”

Poor judgment? Good grief.

Freshwater is not the only teacher to have used the electrostatic device in question on students and to have considered it safe.

Back in August 4th 2008 one of his fellow teachers, Lori Miller, spoke before the school board and said that she has used the device in the same manner that Freshwater has without incident. “I have never had a concern or an issue with it and I cannot honesty comprehend how that device can burn an individual as alleged,” Miller said.

(Video of Lori Miller speaking to school board.)

It doesn’t stop there. Oxenford, called to testify at the hearing by the school board’s attorney, also mentioned using a similar device on students. According to a Dispatch article on January 9, 2009, “Oxenford said he'd touch the tip of the device to a student's fingertip, a sensation he described as ‘not pleasant,’ but not dangerous. He said he never saw or heard of anyone being injured.”

The Dispatch editorial was not just a rush to judgment. It was a deliberate disregard of facts and context.

What agenda does the editorial board of the Dispatch have?

The Dispatch says in the editorial that “The mistake was not in firing Freshwater but in waiting so long to do it.” The editorial characterizes Freshwater as a part of a group of “teachers whose personal beliefs get in the way of their responsibility to educate.”

Is the Dispatch editorial about some real or perceived difference in beliefs between them and Freshwater? The Code of Ethics states that a journalist should “Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.” The Code of Ethics also states that a journalist should avoid stereotyping based on religion.

In the concluding paragraph of the editorial, the Dispatch says that “Other school districts with budding John Freshwaters should take heed.”

Who is a “budding John Freshwater”?

Is that someone who holds different beliefs than that of the Dispatch editorial board—but is still able to teach science well enough to be the “best” by state testing standards?

The last sentence of the editorial reads, “Confronting a popular teacher is controversial, but preserving sound education is essential.”

What does the Dispatch mean by “sound education”?

We already know that for the people who wrote the Dispatch editorial “sound education” does not necessarily include teaching that results in top scores on state tests.

What, then, does “sound education” mean? Does it mean education taught by someone who never disagrees with the Dispatch’s editorial positions?

The Columbus Dispatch editorial “Teaching moment” was a disappointing example of journalism. The Dispatch should retract the editorial and issue John Freshwater a written apology for the journalistic misconduct that the Dispatch editorial board engaged in on January 7, 2009.

Read more about The Columbus Dispatch’s involvement in the Freshwater controversy: “Dispatch Editor and Son Testified for MV School Board.”