Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Principals Do Not Encourage Teachers To Stay In Their Jobs

Principals Drop Ball on Teacher Retention, Study Says

LINK
 

Policymakers, administrators, and advocacy groups have correctly diagnosed a major problem plaguing the teaching profession—high rates of teacher attrition—but have missed the mark in their prescriptions for fixing it, concludes a new report released this morning by the New York City-based TNTP, formerly The New Teacher Project.
In essence, it contends, most school leaders fail to identify and encourage the very best teachers to stay in schools. In part, it says, that’s because of the K-12 field’s tendency to uncouple decisions about retention from discussions of teacher quality.
The consequences of these practices, according to the report, has particularly affected low-performing schools, where a revolving door gradually makes it harder to develop a critical mass of effective teachers to sustain improvements. In such schools, the report estimates, a high-performing teacher who leaves will be replaced by an equally effective peer less than a tenth of the time.
Officials at the 3 million-member National Education Association largely seconded the report’s main thrust, despite some reservations about its accompanying recommendations.
“It’s a common sense idea many of us who have been involved in education felt was true. Now we have some evidence that there’s a difference between good retention and bad retention,” said Segun C. Eubanks, the director of teacher quality for the NEA. “I think that’s an important contribution to the field.”

Studying Retention

Rates of teacher attrition estimated at anywhere from a quarter to half of new teachers in their first five years on the job have been the cause of much concern among policymakers, and spawned a raft of mentoring and induction programs over the past decade. ("Oft-Cited Statistic Likely Inaccurate," June 13, 2007).
They have also been the focus of intense study, with retention rates being linked in separate research to teachers’ working conditions and performance.
The TNTP report delves more deeply into the connections among those three threads. For the study, TNTP officials examined the personnel records of some 90,000 teachers across four unnamed urban school districts. It gathered available individual teacher “value-added” data for a subset of 20,000 teachers. (Value-added is a statistical methodology that uses student test scores to generate an estimate of a teacher’s impact on the academic progress of his or her pupils.)
They coupled this data with information from surveys, interviews, and focus groups with the teachers.
Of the teachers studied, the group identified a subset of about 20 percent of the teachers as “irreplaceables” because their students made two to three more months’ worth of academic progress compared to those taught by the average teacher in the district.
Among the report’s findings:
• The school districts lost their most successful teachers at a rate comparable to the attrition of the least successful teachers.
• “Irreplaceable” teachers who experienced two or more of eight different recruitment strategies—including advancement opportunities, regular performance feedback, and public recognition—said they planned to stay at their schools nearly twice as long as other teachers.
• In one of the districts studied, only a fifth of the lowest-performing teachers were encouraged to leave, while more than a third were given incentives to stay.
• “Irreplaceable” teachers were much more likely to stay at schools with a strong instructional culture in which principals set strong performance expectations for them.
The report reserves particularly strong criticism for principals, who it contends have misjudged the retention issue by turning a blind eye to quality in retention decisions.
“Principals tell themselves low-performers are going to improve, and therefore they don’t have to address it; and they say there’s nothing they can do to retain high-performing teachers,” said Timothy Daly, the president of TNTP. “Both of those things we see as largely untrue.”

Recommendations Offered

The report makes policy recommendations for more-strategic retention of teachers, several of which touch on hotly debated policy issues. They include paying the best teachers six-figure salaries; requiring principals to set goals for retaining “irreplaceable” teachers; monitoring working conditions; and dismissing teachers who, after remediation, cannot teach as well as the average novice. Together, the report suggests, these strategies could also raise the rigor of the profession.
Mr. Eubanks of the NEA added that he’d have liked to have seen the report draw a stronger connection between teacher preparation and retention. Newer training programs that focus on beefed-up apprenticeships for novices often have the improved retention of effective teachers as a goal, he noted.
“The first part of good retention is that you’re hiring and training the right folks, so they’re ready from day one in the first place,” he said. “A question we’d have is what impact a much more thoughtful recruitment and preparation system would have on this whole retention issue.”
Scholars, meanwhile, struggled to fit some of the findings into the context of the increasingly complex body of research on the issue of teacher retention.
For one, the relative harmfulness of turnover remains a subject of some debate. Economists, including Erik A. Hanushek of Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, have found that it’s the weaker teachers who tend to leave low-achieving schools, a phenomenon that theoretically should improve student achievement.
But a recent working paper by three scholars, published by the Washington-based National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, added a new wrinkle to the debate: It showed that high levels of teacher attrition can depress levels of student achievement even among students whose teachers stayed put.
Such mixed findings continue to leave educators guessing at the right balance to strike with retention, said Richard M. Ingersoll, a professor of education and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, and the author of a number of frequently cited studies on teacher retention.
“I’m often asked, ‘What’s the optimum amount of teacher turnover? We don’t want too much, we don’t want too little’,” Mr. Ingersoll said. “It’s a really hard issue. I don’t know the answer.”

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

NYS Governor Cuomo Vetoes Special Ed Placement Bill

LINK

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has vetoed a bill that may have increased the number of special education students eligible for private school placement.
The bill called for school officials to consider “home environment and family background,” such as religion, when approving taxpayer-funded tuition for private schools. But the governor said the bill “unfairly places the burden on taxpayers to support the provision of a private education.”
Advocates for the bill, including religious organizations, argued that the bill would help provide more “appropriate” placements for children with special needs and streamline reimbursement to families.
Lawmakers from both chambers passed the legislation in June. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg who opposed the measure, praised the governor for blocking the bill’s passage.
“The proposed legislation would have imposed another unfunded mandate on taxpayers across New York. With his veto, Governor Cuomo has once again shown his commitment to fiscal responsibility and to protecting both the City and State from unsustainable financial burdens,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement.
The Wall Street Journal reports the governor said in his veto message “that the bill ran contrary to his commitment to reducing the expensive mandates Albany places on local governments. School districts, which lobbied strongly against the bill, have been dealing with an increase in the number of students who win the right to go to private schools on the taxpayer’s dime.”
Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein of Brooklyn said she was disappointed by the veto, claiming there was “a lot of misunderstanding” about the bill’s impact.
“For the sake of clarity, it should be known that this measure is all about putting children first. It is about removing barriers to education for one of our most vulnerable populations, children with special needs,” she said. “It is about giving these children an equal opportunity to succeed.”
Patricia Willens is an editor at WNYC. Follow her on Twitter @pwillens

The For-Profit College Scam is Exposed In A New Report

July 30, 2012

False Promises


It has long been clear that an oily subgroup of for-profit schools were doing very well for themselves by recruiting students who had no real chance of graduating, pocketing their federal financial aid and leaving the students with valueless credentials — or none at all — and crippling debt.
A dismaying study released this week by Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat of Iowa, suggests that this predatory behavior — which costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year — may extend well beyond the unscrupulous few to the industry as a whole. The study reveals a disturbing pattern in which companies use misleading tactics to lure poorly informed students into certificate and associate degree programs that average about four times the cost of similar programs in comparable community colleges.
According to the study, taxpayers poured about $32 billion into for-profit colleges in the most recent year — much of it spent on marketing or pocketed as profit. Meanwhile, 96 percent of their students were forced to take out loans, as opposed to about 13 percent in community colleges and 48 percent in four-year public colleges. A majority leave without degrees. And while the for-profit sector accounts for only about 13 percent of enrollment nationally, it accounts for nearly half the loan defaults.
The companies are clearly doing far better than the students. Publicly traded companies that operate for-profit colleges had an average profit margin of 19.7 percent, while paying an average of $7.3 million to their chief executives in 2009, the report says.
This is a politically charged issue, with the Democrats generally favoring tougher regulation and the Republicans favoring the for-profits as a useful alternative to overcrowded community colleges and important sources of vocational education. The good ones may be both. But too many of them look like nothing more than profit centers. Congress, which has largely been looking the other way on this issue, needs to rouse itself.
July 29, 2012

Senate Committee Report on For-Profit Colleges Condemns Costs and Practices


Wrapping up a two-year investigation of for-profit colleges, Senator Tom Harkin will issue a final report on Monday — a voluminous, hard-hitting indictment of almost every aspect of the industry, filled with troubling statistics and anecdotes drawn from internal documents of the 30 companies investigated.
According to the report, which was posted online in advance, taxpayers spent $32 billion in the most recent year on companies that operate for-profit colleges, but the majority of students they enroll leave without a degree, half of those within four months.
“In this report, you will find overwhelming documentation of exorbitant tuition, aggressive recruiting practices, abysmal student outcomes, taxpayer dollars spent on marketing and pocketed as profit, and regulatory evasion and manipulation,” Mr. Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said in a statement on Sunday. “These practices are not the exception — they are the norm. They are systemic throughout the industry, with very few individual exceptions.”
In a statement on Sunday, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, the leading trade group of for-profit colleges, called the report “the result of a flawed process that has unfairly targeted private-sector schools and their students.”
For-profit higher education has long been a politically divisive issue, with Democrats generally arguing that greater regulation is needed to prevent huge publicly traded colleges from plundering the Treasury for student financial aid while leaving students with crippling debt and credentials that are worthless in the job market. Many Republicans see such colleges as a healthy free-market alternative to overcrowded community colleges, offering useful vocational training and education to working adults who will not attend more traditional institutions.
The Republicans on the Senate committee criticized the Democrats’ investigation for including testimony from Steve Eisman, the hedge fund manager who was one of the first to compare for-profit colleges to the subprime mortgage industry; for making public the internal company documents that the committee gathered; for refusing to broaden the investigation to include abuses by nonprofit colleges; and for being what they said was a hostile partisan effort.
Over the last 15 years, enrollment and profits have skyrocketed in the industry. Until the 1990s, the sector was made up of small independent schools offering training in fields like air-conditioning repair and cosmetology. But from 1998 to 2008, enrollment more than tripled, to about 2.4 million students. Three-quarters are at colleges owned by huge publicly traded companies — and, more recently, private equity firms — offering a wide variety of programs.
Enrolling students, and getting their federal financial aid, is the heart of the business, and in 2010, the report found, the colleges studied had a total of 32,496 recruiters, compared with 3,512 career-services staff members.
Among the 30 companies, an average of 22.4 percent of revenue went to marketing and recruiting, 19.4 percent to profits and 17.7 percent to instruction.
Their chief executive officers were paid an average of $7.3 million, although Robert S. Silberman, the chief executive of Strayer Education, made $41 million in 2009, including stock options.
With the Department of Education seeking new regulations to ensure that for-profit programs provide training for “gainful employment,” the companies examined spent $8 million on lobbying in 2010, and another $8 million in the first nine months of 2011.
The bulk of the for-profit colleges’ revenue, more than 80 percent in most cases, comes from taxpayers. The report found that many for-profit colleges are working desperately to find new strategies to comply with the federal regulation that at least 10 percent of revenue must come from sources other than the Department of Education. Because veterans’ benefits count toward that 10 percent even though they come from the federal government, aggressive recruiting of students from the military has become the norm.
The amount of available federal student aid is large and growing. The Apollo Group, which operates the University of Phoenix, the largest for-profit college, got $1.2 billion in Pell grants in 2010-11, up from $24 million a decade earlier. Apollo got $210 million more in benefits under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. And yet two-thirds of Apollo’s associate-degree students leave before earning their degree.
On Sunday, William Pepicello, president of the University of Phoenix, sent its 350,000 students a long e-mail warning of the criticism, and extolling the value of a Phoenix education.
On average, the Harkin report found, associate-degree and certificate programs at for-profit colleges cost about four times as much as those at community colleges and public universities.
And tuition decisions seem to be driven more by profit-seeking than instructional costs. An internal memo from the finance director of a Kaplan nursing program in Sacramento, for example, recommended an 8 percent increase in fees, saying that “with the new pricing, we can lose two students and still make the same profit.” Similarly, the chief financial officer at National American University wrote in an e-mail to executives that the university had not met its profit expectation for the summer quarter, so “as a result” it would need a midyear tuition increase.
Many of the for-profit colleges, the report found, set tuition at almost exactly what a student could expect in maximum federal aid, including Pell grants and Stafford loans. According to a Bridgepoint Education document, when a new $400 “digital materials fee” would make students pay more than would be available from federal aid, the chief executive frantically wrote an e-mail to the finance officer to complain that the change was going to cause a “shortfall.” And documents from Alta Colleges mention restructuring schedules “so we can grab more of the students’ Stafford.”
Furthermore, the report found, recruiters are often encouraged to avoid directly answering questions about costs and instead emphasize that with federal aid, student will pay little out of pocket. And costs are not easy for students to determine. A former Westwood College recruiter explained that prospective students were told that the cost was $4,800 per term, but not that there were five or six terms a year rather than the usual two or three.
At many schools, students learned only after the fact that their credits would not transfer to another college or university or qualify them for the professional licensing they sought.
Students at for-profit colleges make up 13 percent of the nation’s college enrollment, but account for about 47 percent of the defaults on loans. About 96 percent of students at for-profit schools take out loans, compared with about 13 percent at community colleges and 48 percent at four-year public universities.
Colleges with very high loan default rates in the two years after graduation (now changing to three years) lose their eligibility for federal student aid. As a result, the report found, many of the for-profit colleges try to move students having trouble with repayment into deferral or forbearance until they are past the years the government monitors.

For-Profit Colleges Only a Con Man Could Love

Barbarians in the Ivory Tower

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

NY State Students Are Not Ready For College

May 25, 2012

Albany’s Unkindest Cut of All

Albany
IN most states, top-ranked high school seniors are shoo-ins to attend their local state universities. But that’s not how it goes in New York these days. In one recent, glaring case, the valedictorian of a rural school district outside Rochester was rejected by a nearby State University of New York campus — not because her grades were too low, but because her high school didn’t offer the courses needed to compete for college admission.
Such stories are becoming increasingly common across New York State. Poor school districts are being forced to cut electives, remedial tutoring, foreign languages and other programs and services to balance budgets. Many schools in less prosperous areas face what the state commissioner of education calls “educational insolvency.”
The obvious losers are students, who will be less prepared for graduation, college and their careers. But ultimately, all New Yorkers will suffer as the lack of skilled workers becomes a long-term drain on economic activity across the state.
Only five years ago, the state committed to pumping $5.5 billion into classrooms, with 72 percent slated for the neediest schools, whether in urban, rural or suburban communities. This commitment, similar to those made in other states, came after 13 years of litigation by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, based on the state Constitution’s guarantee of a “sound, basic education” for all students. Unfortunately, that progressive commitment was abandoned as the state faced fiscal hard times.
New York started cutting education resources in 2009. The federal government stepped in that year with stimulus money directed at schools, which temporarily cushioned the blow, but was not enough to stop the onset of classroom cuts.
The problem grew worse in 2010 and 2011, when Albany made $2.7 billion in school aid cuts, resulting in the loss of 30,000 educators and increased class sizes at two-thirds of the state’s schools.
The program cuts ranged from summer school to Advanced Placement courses, but the cuts have been harshest in poor communities. Over all, cuts to poor and middle-class schools were two to three times larger per pupil than those imposed on wealthy schools.
For example, Poughkeepsie, with a student poverty rate of 80 percent, has cut its full-day kindergarten to a half day, while wealthy Jericho offers high school classes in fashion design and civil engineering. Scarsdale offers 22 Advanced Placement courses, while poor and rural Massena, in New York’s North Country, offers only two, even though many colleges now give A.P. courses greater weight than S.A.T. scores in admissions.
On top of the multiyear cuts, the state has made it harder for school districts to get more money. A new statewide cap on how high local revenues can be raised is further exacerbating educational inequities. The cap limits property tax hikes to 2 percent, which may sound fair but actually contributes to school inequality: the permitted tax increase raises a lot more revenue from million-dollar homes for wealthy schools than it raises on $100,000 homes for poorer schools. And a newly implemented cap on increases in state education aid means that even with a slight restoration of state aid this year, schools are still forced to make cuts.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has been the most vocal proponent both of cutting and capping state school aid and of capping local revenues. He has dismissed the impact that cuts and caps would have on schools — a position that becomes harder to maintain as district after district reports dire circumstances.
Simultaneously, Mr. Cuomo has been a proponent of trendy “market reforms,” like increasing the role of standardized tests in evaluating teachers and using the same tests to make school districts compete with one another for resources. These so-called reforms may be cheaper, but they are no substitute for the proven programs that are being cut.
Around the world, countries with the top-performing schools, like Finland, Singapore and Canada, all emphasize equity in school financing to provide added resources for schools in poorer communities. These international leaders also emphasize ensuring that all students have access to a high-quality curriculum and providing all teachers with support to continuously improve their skills — instead of forcing teachers and schools to compete for artificially limited pools of money.
Governor Cuomo has promoted himself as a leader in education policy. His mastery of Albany’s famously dysfunctional politics has made him one of the nation’s rising political stars. But the results in the classroom do not match his rhetoric — and unless our state government changes course on education funding policy, they never will.
Billy Easton is the executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Queens Democrat Rep. Gregory Meeks is Being Investigated By The Feds

Feds question Meeks over millions steered to Qns. nonprofit

Last Updated: 5:52 AM, July 29, 2012
Posted: 11:52 PM, July 28, 2012

Gregory Meeks

 
Federal investigators are scrutinizing millions in taxpayer dollars that Rep. Gregory Meeks steered to a Queens nonprofit.
The US Attorney’s Office recently issued a subpoena to the Greater Jamaica Development Corp. seeking information on federal funding secured by Meeks, a government source told The Post.
Fred Winters, a spokesman for Greater Jamaica, confirmed that the organization had received a subpoena and said it was not the target of the federal investigation. He refused to say who was.
Greater Jamaica has been a funding favorite of Meeks. His political mentor, the Rev. Floyd Flake, sits on the board.
Carlisle Towery, the president of Greater Jamaica, kicked in $1,000 in June to Meeks’ re-election campaign.
The Queens Democrat has arranged for numerous grants to the organization, including $9.2 million from the Federal Transit Administration to fix up a decrepit underpass below the Long Island Rail Road tracks and create a shopping arcade there.
Another $8.2 million in federal money is to go toward an extension of Atlantic Avenue.
The long-delayed underpass project was finally completed this spring, and Meeks appeared at a “lighting ceremony” with other officials to symbolically open the dark underpass. But the row of four newly built storefronts — a total of 5,500 square feet of space — sits empty.
Winters refused to answer questions about potential tenants.
Meeks also helped get $21 million in tax credits to create a complex of housing, retail shops and a hotel near the Jamaica LIRR station and JFK AirTrain stop. A deal with a hotel developer to build on the site fell through. The city’s Economic Development Corp. just sent out a request for development proposals for the land.
On Friday — days after Post inquiries about the project — Greater Jamaica issued a request for proposals (RFP) to develop a nearby building on Sutphin Boulevard that it purchased in 2004 with $2.7 million in taxpayer money from the Port Authority.
The building was once envisioned as a corporate headquarters for JetBlue Airways Corp. or other companies but now serves only as an occasional meeting space for Greater Jamaica. The PA was supposed to get its money back or take over the building if no development happened by 2008.
After a Post exposé in January, the PA demanded Greater Jamaica look for a developer or it would take the building by Aug. 20.
A PA spokeswoman said the agency was “disappointed” with Greater Jamaica’s progress and urged it to “expeditiously review the RFP responses and select a developer committed to developing this property and creating jobs.”
A spokeswoman for Meeks refused comment.
Meeks has long been the target of federal investigators. They began looking into him in 2010 after The Post reported his relationship with the New Direction Local Development Corp., a Queens charity he helped to found. The Post revealed that the group collected thousands of dollars for Hurricane Katrina victims and almost none of it made it to the victims.
The House Ethics Committee has an ongoing probe into Meeks over a $40,000 payment he received in 2007 from Queens businessman Edul Ahmad. Meeks didn’t report the payment on his yearly financial disclosure form. Ahmad was arrested in 2011 in connection with a $50 million mortgage fraud scheme.
Additional reporting by Alex Freeman
melissa.klein@nypost.com