August 27, 2010
Briefing Paper #278
Every classroom should have a well-educated, professional teacher, and school systems should recruit, prepare, and retain teachers who are qualified to do the job. Yet in practice, American public schools generally do a poor job of systematically developing and evaluating teachers.
Many policy makers have recently come to believe that this failure can be remedied by calculating the improvement in students’ scores on standardized tests in mathematics and reading, and then relying heavily on these calculations to evaluate, reward, and remove the teachers of these tested students.
While there are good reasons for concern about the current system of teacher evaluation, there are also good reasons to be concerned about claims that measuring teachers’ effectiveness largely by student test scores will lead to improved student achievement. If new laws or policies specifically require that teachers be fired if their students’ test scores do not rise by a certain amount, then more teachers might well be terminated than is now the case. But there is not strong evidence to indicate either that the departing teachers would actually be the weakest teachers, or that the departing teachers would be replaced by more effective ones. There is also little or no evidence for the claim that teachers will be more motivated to improve student learning if teachers are evaluated or monetarily rewarded for student test score gains.
A review of the technical evidence leads us to conclude that, although standardized test scores of students are one piece of information for school leaders to use to make judgments about teacher effectiveness, such scores should be only a part of an overall comprehensive evaluation. Some states are now considering plans that would give as much as 50% of the weight in teacher evaluation and compensation decisions to scores on existing tests of basic skills in math and reading. Based on the evidence, we consider this unwise.
Any sound evaluation will necessarily involve a balancing of many factors that provide a more accurate view of what teachers in fact do in the classroom and how that contributes to student learning.
Read Briefing Paper #278
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Senate Hearing: Videos of For-Profit School Staffers Expose Fraudulent Acts
Download the entire study, “For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices.”
You can also check out the GAO videos.
- Patricia
by Jamaal Abdul-Alim | Diverse Issues in Higher Ed
August 5, 2010
WASHINGTON – Secretly-recorded videos of shady practices within the for-profit college sector got aired Wednesday during an occasionally testy Senate committee hearing that probed the extent of those practices among the proprietary schools.
“Critics say it’s only a few bad apples. But I question if it’s the entire orchard,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Harkin was referring to for-profit colleges as a whole in light of a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report based on an undercover investigation this summer that found 15 out of 15 for-profit colleges had made “deceptive or otherwise questionable statements” to GAO workers who posed as prospective students with hidden cameras to conduct their investigation.
The for-profit college sites that were targeted by the investigation were: the University of Phoenix in Arizona and Pennsylvania, Everest College of Arizona; Westech College and Kaplan College, of California; Potomac College and Bennett College, of Washington, D.C.; Medvance Institute and Kaplan College, of Florida; College of Office Tech and Argosy University, of Illinois; Anthem Institute, of Pennsylvania; and Westwood College, Everest College and ATI Career Training, of Texas.
Four of the 15 school sites the GAO investigated this summer encouraged students to commit fraud, according to the GAO report titled For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices.
The schools’ practices are of concern, Harkin said, because they are reaping a growing amount of federal aid--$23 billion today versus $4.6 billion a decade ago—that is flowing largely into the pockets of their executives and investors.
“I’m not certain regulations will suffice,” Harkin said at the hearing, titled For-Profit Schools: The Student Recruitment Experience.
“Where this is headed is toward legislation,” Harkin added, explaining that he wanted to come up with a permanent legislative solution that could not be overturned by another administration or rendered ineffective by regulatory exceptions.
Sen. Mike Enzi, (R-Wyoming) suggested the investigation be expanded to include all types of colleges, not just for-profit colleges -- a suggestion that drew a cool response from Democratic members of the committee.
Gregory Kutz, managing director of Forensic Audits and Special Investigations for the GAO, outlined and commented on the secretly-recorded video clips during the hearing that showed for-profit college officials telling students to falsify their federal student aid forms in order to get more federal aid, misleading them about the cost and value of the colleges’ offerings, and pressuring them to enroll without being able to consult a financial aid adviser.
In one clip, a for-profit college worker told the federal worker posing as a student not to disclose that he had $250,000 in savings from an inheritance because it was “none of the government’s business.”
In another clip, the government’s undercover worker is told that spending $115,000 for a computer drafting course was a “good value,” when in reality the same type of certificate earned through the program could be gotten for $520 at a local community college.
Other clips showed the for-profit college workers telling undercover government workers that they would earn more money than statistics suggest is true. For instance, one worker at a school with a program for barbers claimed that a barber in Washington, D.C., could make from $150,000 to $200,000 a year when statistics show most barbers in D.C. earn about $19,000 a year.
The clips repeatedly showed officials at the for-profit colleges denying the government’s undercover workers’ requests to speak with financial aid advisers before they actually enrolled.
“We kept saying, ‘We want to know how much it is,’” Kutz, of the GAO, said. “They kept saying, ‘No, no, no.’”
Kutz said the colleges' wrongdoings had been referred to the U.S. Department of Education's Inspector General's Office and might be referred for criminal prosecution or civil action, depending on the circumstances.
So damning were the clips that the Career College Association, which represents the for-profit college sector, issued a statement that was void of any direct appeals to not judge the entire sector by the actions of a few.
“Even if the problems cited in the GAO report are limited to a few individuals at a few institutions, we can have zero tolerance for bad behavior,” CCA president and CEO Harris Miller said.
Joshua Pruyn, a former admissions representative at Westwood College, a subsidiary of Alta College Inc., testified that admissions representatives were coached and pressured to act as sales representatives—something critics say undermines students’ interests.
“Students were absolutely not allowed to speak to anyone in financial aid,” Pruyn testified. “Our response was, ‘This was step one, you’re not allowed to jump to step two.’”
Pruyn said that, when he asked why this was standard practice, he was told the reason was not to overburden the college’s financial aid staff. But the real purpose, he said, was to get the students to make a commitment to enroll in the college up front.
“We were directed to say things like, ‘I thought you wanted to make a change,’” Pruyn testified.
That runs contrary to the standard practice espoused by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, according to David Hawkins, director of public policy and research at the organization, who also testified at the hearing.
“Our standard practice is to allow students to ask the kinds of questions about the things they need to know about financial aid,” Hawkins said.
One of the more heated moments occurred when Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took witness Michael McComis, executive director of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), to task on McComis’ testimony that the accrediting agency he oversees strives to “hold institutions accountable to ensure that only the highest level of integrity is injected into the student recruitment and admissions process” and to make sure that students are “accurately and fully informed” of an institution’s program.
Franken asked how those statements could be true when three schools that McComis’ agency accredited were found to have misled prospective students.
“Do you think perhaps your rigorous standards aren’t rigorous enough?” Franken asked.
“I don’t think so,” McComis responded.
“To me,” Franken shot back, “there is a real discrepancy here. Doesn’t this industry have any interest in self-policing itself?”
Later, under questioning, McComis acknowledged that a “key” part of its accrediting process is a self-evaluation done by the college that is seeking accreditation.
“You kind of go to the school, ask them how they’re doing, and if they say good, you say fine,” Sen. Harkin observed.
Harkin also questioned why the ACCSC accredited 41 schools with default rates higher than 30 percent within the first three years.
McComis said the ACCSC currently uses two-year default rates but doesn’t take them into account when accrediting a college.
“We have found in our data no correlation to indicate that default rates are directly statistically correlated to the quality of the education,” McComis said, adding that graduation and employment rates are better indicators of a program’s effectiveness.
The U.S. Department of Education has proposed a set of rules that would, among other things, take the student loan default rates among students into account when determining whether the schools should be eligible for federal aid.
Wednesday’s hearing was the second in what Harkin says will be a series of hearings on the for-profit college sector in the coming months. Harkin stated that accreditation was one of the areas he planned to look at in a future hearing.
Click here for a link to the GAO videos.
You can also check out the GAO videos.
- Patricia
by Jamaal Abdul-Alim | Diverse Issues in Higher Ed
August 5, 2010
WASHINGTON – Secretly-recorded videos of shady practices within the for-profit college sector got aired Wednesday during an occasionally testy Senate committee hearing that probed the extent of those practices among the proprietary schools.
“Critics say it’s only a few bad apples. But I question if it’s the entire orchard,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Harkin was referring to for-profit colleges as a whole in light of a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report based on an undercover investigation this summer that found 15 out of 15 for-profit colleges had made “deceptive or otherwise questionable statements” to GAO workers who posed as prospective students with hidden cameras to conduct their investigation.
The for-profit college sites that were targeted by the investigation were: the University of Phoenix in Arizona and Pennsylvania, Everest College of Arizona; Westech College and Kaplan College, of California; Potomac College and Bennett College, of Washington, D.C.; Medvance Institute and Kaplan College, of Florida; College of Office Tech and Argosy University, of Illinois; Anthem Institute, of Pennsylvania; and Westwood College, Everest College and ATI Career Training, of Texas.
Four of the 15 school sites the GAO investigated this summer encouraged students to commit fraud, according to the GAO report titled For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices.
The schools’ practices are of concern, Harkin said, because they are reaping a growing amount of federal aid--$23 billion today versus $4.6 billion a decade ago—that is flowing largely into the pockets of their executives and investors.
“I’m not certain regulations will suffice,” Harkin said at the hearing, titled For-Profit Schools: The Student Recruitment Experience.
“Where this is headed is toward legislation,” Harkin added, explaining that he wanted to come up with a permanent legislative solution that could not be overturned by another administration or rendered ineffective by regulatory exceptions.
Sen. Mike Enzi, (R-Wyoming) suggested the investigation be expanded to include all types of colleges, not just for-profit colleges -- a suggestion that drew a cool response from Democratic members of the committee.
Gregory Kutz, managing director of Forensic Audits and Special Investigations for the GAO, outlined and commented on the secretly-recorded video clips during the hearing that showed for-profit college officials telling students to falsify their federal student aid forms in order to get more federal aid, misleading them about the cost and value of the colleges’ offerings, and pressuring them to enroll without being able to consult a financial aid adviser.
In one clip, a for-profit college worker told the federal worker posing as a student not to disclose that he had $250,000 in savings from an inheritance because it was “none of the government’s business.”
In another clip, the government’s undercover worker is told that spending $115,000 for a computer drafting course was a “good value,” when in reality the same type of certificate earned through the program could be gotten for $520 at a local community college.
Other clips showed the for-profit college workers telling undercover government workers that they would earn more money than statistics suggest is true. For instance, one worker at a school with a program for barbers claimed that a barber in Washington, D.C., could make from $150,000 to $200,000 a year when statistics show most barbers in D.C. earn about $19,000 a year.
The clips repeatedly showed officials at the for-profit colleges denying the government’s undercover workers’ requests to speak with financial aid advisers before they actually enrolled.
“We kept saying, ‘We want to know how much it is,’” Kutz, of the GAO, said. “They kept saying, ‘No, no, no.’”
Kutz said the colleges' wrongdoings had been referred to the U.S. Department of Education's Inspector General's Office and might be referred for criminal prosecution or civil action, depending on the circumstances.
So damning were the clips that the Career College Association, which represents the for-profit college sector, issued a statement that was void of any direct appeals to not judge the entire sector by the actions of a few.
“Even if the problems cited in the GAO report are limited to a few individuals at a few institutions, we can have zero tolerance for bad behavior,” CCA president and CEO Harris Miller said.
Joshua Pruyn, a former admissions representative at Westwood College, a subsidiary of Alta College Inc., testified that admissions representatives were coached and pressured to act as sales representatives—something critics say undermines students’ interests.
“Students were absolutely not allowed to speak to anyone in financial aid,” Pruyn testified. “Our response was, ‘This was step one, you’re not allowed to jump to step two.’”
Pruyn said that, when he asked why this was standard practice, he was told the reason was not to overburden the college’s financial aid staff. But the real purpose, he said, was to get the students to make a commitment to enroll in the college up front.
“We were directed to say things like, ‘I thought you wanted to make a change,’” Pruyn testified.
That runs contrary to the standard practice espoused by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, according to David Hawkins, director of public policy and research at the organization, who also testified at the hearing.
“Our standard practice is to allow students to ask the kinds of questions about the things they need to know about financial aid,” Hawkins said.
One of the more heated moments occurred when Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took witness Michael McComis, executive director of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), to task on McComis’ testimony that the accrediting agency he oversees strives to “hold institutions accountable to ensure that only the highest level of integrity is injected into the student recruitment and admissions process” and to make sure that students are “accurately and fully informed” of an institution’s program.
Franken asked how those statements could be true when three schools that McComis’ agency accredited were found to have misled prospective students.
“Do you think perhaps your rigorous standards aren’t rigorous enough?” Franken asked.
“I don’t think so,” McComis responded.
“To me,” Franken shot back, “there is a real discrepancy here. Doesn’t this industry have any interest in self-policing itself?”
Later, under questioning, McComis acknowledged that a “key” part of its accrediting process is a self-evaluation done by the college that is seeking accreditation.
“You kind of go to the school, ask them how they’re doing, and if they say good, you say fine,” Sen. Harkin observed.
Harkin also questioned why the ACCSC accredited 41 schools with default rates higher than 30 percent within the first three years.
McComis said the ACCSC currently uses two-year default rates but doesn’t take them into account when accrediting a college.
“We have found in our data no correlation to indicate that default rates are directly statistically correlated to the quality of the education,” McComis said, adding that graduation and employment rates are better indicators of a program’s effectiveness.
The U.S. Department of Education has proposed a set of rules that would, among other things, take the student loan default rates among students into account when determining whether the schools should be eligible for federal aid.
Wednesday’s hearing was the second in what Harkin says will be a series of hearings on the for-profit college sector in the coming months. Harkin stated that accreditation was one of the areas he planned to look at in a future hearing.
Click here for a link to the GAO videos.
Closing the Achievement Gap by the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators
Check out this report by the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL).
Friday, August 20, 2010
Early look at upcoming Texas immigration debate
By Tim Eaton | AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010
Lawmakers talk about effects an Arizona-inspired law would have here.
A legislative committee hearing Wednesday offered a glimpse of the immigration debate that Texas lawmakers could have in the upcoming session with Republicans pushing to limit illegal immigration and Democrats questioning the wisdom of doing so, especially in a tight budget year.
Much of the House Committee on State Affairs' discussion was about Arizona's controversial law calling for law enforcement officers to ask people for documents showing citizenship and about E-Verify, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services computer system that is supposed to make sure job applicants are in the U.S. legally.
The committee hearing was intended to educate lawmakers on immigration issues that might come up in the legislative session that begins in January, when lawmakers are expected to face an $18 billion budget shortfall.
Though the period to pre-file bills has not started, the committee's chairman, Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, said, "It's naive to think that the state isn't going to do something" to try to limit illegal immigration in Texas.
A handful of Republican lawmakers have signaled that they would introduce bills that would mandate E-Verify and enact a law like Arizona's.
Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, highlighted potential expenses for Texas if an Arizona-like law were enacted here. He also pointed to testimony from immigration lawyer Michael Golden indicating that E-Verify, which is free to employers and available in all 50 states, appeared to be unreliable. For example, it might be hard to verify a person who changed her name after marriage.
During the hearing, Gallego told fellow committee members and the small crowd in the hearing room that when making policy, "you always have to be aware of unintended consequences."
Gallego said there could be significant effects if law enforcement and other public agencies were asked to reallocate already-sparse resources to check citizenship of people in Texas, many of whom would not be here illegally.
Later in the hearing, Rep. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, also said lawmakers should not pass laws that would inadvertently take resources and money away from law enforcement's ability to protect the border.
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010
Lawmakers talk about effects an Arizona-inspired law would have here.
A legislative committee hearing Wednesday offered a glimpse of the immigration debate that Texas lawmakers could have in the upcoming session with Republicans pushing to limit illegal immigration and Democrats questioning the wisdom of doing so, especially in a tight budget year.
Much of the House Committee on State Affairs' discussion was about Arizona's controversial law calling for law enforcement officers to ask people for documents showing citizenship and about E-Verify, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services computer system that is supposed to make sure job applicants are in the U.S. legally.
The committee hearing was intended to educate lawmakers on immigration issues that might come up in the legislative session that begins in January, when lawmakers are expected to face an $18 billion budget shortfall.
Though the period to pre-file bills has not started, the committee's chairman, Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, said, "It's naive to think that the state isn't going to do something" to try to limit illegal immigration in Texas.
A handful of Republican lawmakers have signaled that they would introduce bills that would mandate E-Verify and enact a law like Arizona's.
Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, highlighted potential expenses for Texas if an Arizona-like law were enacted here. He also pointed to testimony from immigration lawyer Michael Golden indicating that E-Verify, which is free to employers and available in all 50 states, appeared to be unreliable. For example, it might be hard to verify a person who changed her name after marriage.
During the hearing, Gallego told fellow committee members and the small crowd in the hearing room that when making policy, "you always have to be aware of unintended consequences."
Gallego said there could be significant effects if law enforcement and other public agencies were asked to reallocate already-sparse resources to check citizenship of people in Texas, many of whom would not be here illegally.
Later in the hearing, Rep. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, also said lawmakers should not pass laws that would inadvertently take resources and money away from law enforcement's ability to protect the border.
Legislation successful in helping Texas universities raise funds in push for tier-one status
By ERIN MULVANEY / The Dallas Morning News
Friday, August 20, 2010
AUSTIN – The presidents of seven state universities said at a hearing Thursday that they have raised a collective $110 million in the last year to improve programs because of a push by the state to move them into coveted tier-one status.
The hearing before House and Senate education committees, meeting jointly, was the first opportunity for the universities to say what they had done to win matching funds from the state. In 2009, the Legislature allotted nearly $300 million to encourage research at state universities so they might join the top-flight University of Texas and Texas A&M University.
Each president said the legislation – which guaranteed certain matching money for a number of achievements including faculty recruiting and private donations – generated new alumni donations, helped attract prestigious faculty and pushed the universities closer to their goal of national recognition as a research institution.
UT-Dallas President David Daniel focused on the Texas Research Incentive Plan, part of the legislation that matches state money with donations directed toward research.
He said the university raised $17 million from donations, matched by $15 million in state money. He estimated that without TRIP donations, they would have raised only $2 million. He called the legislation "transformative."
"The central message was that people got out their checkbooks and wrote checks because of the incentive program," Daniel said.
UT-San Antonio President Ricardo Romo said the tier-one legislation created a buzz in San Antonio. He said the mayor of San Antonio approached him to ask what it would take for the university to compete. The city made a $50 million donation.
"I can't think of another city, not in Texas, I can't think of another city in America where a city has stepped up and said, 'I want to help you become an outstanding institution,' " Romo said. "People are standing up to try to help."
The San Antonio donation will be used toward UTSA's Center for Sustainable Energy Research Institute, to be led by internationally renowned energy expert Les Shephard, who brought in $450 million in research grants to be part of the new project.
Texas Tech President Guy Bailey said his university produced an eight-point strategic plan to compete for funding. The plan includes increasing the number of undergraduates involved in research. Bailey said the legislation led to partnerships in cotton fiber science and wind energy projects, such as a $5 million deal with Bayer CropScience, which will be matched by the Texas Research Incentive Program.
The four other universities in the program are UT-El Paso, UT-Arlington, the University of North Texas and the University of Houston.
Although the presidents touted their accomplishments, lawmakers acknowledged it will be a long road for any of the universities to reach tier-one status.
Friday, August 20, 2010
AUSTIN – The presidents of seven state universities said at a hearing Thursday that they have raised a collective $110 million in the last year to improve programs because of a push by the state to move them into coveted tier-one status.
The hearing before House and Senate education committees, meeting jointly, was the first opportunity for the universities to say what they had done to win matching funds from the state. In 2009, the Legislature allotted nearly $300 million to encourage research at state universities so they might join the top-flight University of Texas and Texas A&M University.
Each president said the legislation – which guaranteed certain matching money for a number of achievements including faculty recruiting and private donations – generated new alumni donations, helped attract prestigious faculty and pushed the universities closer to their goal of national recognition as a research institution.
UT-Dallas President David Daniel focused on the Texas Research Incentive Plan, part of the legislation that matches state money with donations directed toward research.
He said the university raised $17 million from donations, matched by $15 million in state money. He estimated that without TRIP donations, they would have raised only $2 million. He called the legislation "transformative."
"The central message was that people got out their checkbooks and wrote checks because of the incentive program," Daniel said.
UT-San Antonio President Ricardo Romo said the tier-one legislation created a buzz in San Antonio. He said the mayor of San Antonio approached him to ask what it would take for the university to compete. The city made a $50 million donation.
"I can't think of another city, not in Texas, I can't think of another city in America where a city has stepped up and said, 'I want to help you become an outstanding institution,' " Romo said. "People are standing up to try to help."
The San Antonio donation will be used toward UTSA's Center for Sustainable Energy Research Institute, to be led by internationally renowned energy expert Les Shephard, who brought in $450 million in research grants to be part of the new project.
Texas Tech President Guy Bailey said his university produced an eight-point strategic plan to compete for funding. The plan includes increasing the number of undergraduates involved in research. Bailey said the legislation led to partnerships in cotton fiber science and wind energy projects, such as a $5 million deal with Bayer CropScience, which will be matched by the Texas Research Incentive Program.
The four other universities in the program are UT-El Paso, UT-Arlington, the University of North Texas and the University of Houston.
Although the presidents touted their accomplishments, lawmakers acknowledged it will be a long road for any of the universities to reach tier-one status.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Review of “How New York City’s Charter Schools Affect Achievement.”
Check out Stanford University's Sean Reardon's analysis of Harvard's Caroline Hoxby's report titled, "How New York City’s Charter Schools Affect Achievement.”
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)