No "Accountability" for NCLB Tutors

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

REPORT ON TUTORING FIRMS CITES PROBLEMS IN NEW YORK

         New York Times -- March 8, 2006
                     by Elissa Gootman

Tutoring companies, rushing to tap into money available under the 
federal No Child Left Behind law, offered New York City principals 
thousands of dollars for school projects, doled out gift certificates to 
students and hired several workers with criminal backgrounds, according 
to a report released yesterday.

The report also found that some school officials improperly gave 
tutoring companies confidential information about schoolchildren, 
including phone numbers and addresses, which the companies used to track 
down prospective students.

The report, by Richard J. Condon, the special commissioner of 
investigation for the city school system, focused on the practices of 
tutoring companies in the 2003-4 and 2004-5 school years. While many of 
the problems have been addressed, the report said, his office has 
received complaints as recently as this year.

The offer of free tutoring for poor children in failing schools is a 
cornerstone of No Child Left Behind, President Bush's signature 
education law, but getting students to participate has been problematic. 
During the 2004-5 school year, fewer than half of the 215,000 New York 
City students who were eligible took advantage of the tutoring, 
according to the City Department of Education, and tutoring companies 
were paid $74.3 million for their involvement in the program that year.

The report said that the practices "may have violated" New York City's 
conflict-of-interest policies, but does not find evidence of criminal 
wrongdoing or of personal gain by school officials.

In a phone interview, Mr. Condon described a climate of intense 
competition for the federal money as companies wooed both principals, 
who control access to space within their buildings for the after-school 
tutoring sessions, and prospective students, whose participation is 
directly linked to the companies' gains.

"I'm hard pressed to think of something they didn't try that didn't 
skirt the boundaries of ethical behavior," Mr. Condon said.

David Cantor, a spokesman for the City Department of Education, said the 
department had already tightened and clarified its policies on tutoring 
companies and would make further changes based on Mr. Condon's 
recommendations. He acknowledged that in the early days of the tutoring 
program, which the city introduced three years ago, before most other 
districts in the country, there were wrinkles.

"You were suddenly faced with a Wild West of entrepreneurs, and you make 
mistakes as you try to get it right," Mr. Cantor said. "Hopefully we 
have made changes that will help us offer the services more effectively 
and fairly."

In his investigation, which included more than 100 interviews and a 
review of thousands of pages of documents, Mr. Condon homed in on the 
activities of the two tutoring companies with the largest presence in 
New York City: Platform Learning, which was founded in 2003, and, to a 
lesser degree, Newton Learning, a division of Edison Schools. Yesterday, 
both companies defended their records, saying they had already changed 
many of their practices.

"To our knowledge we have fully and aggressively addressed all concerns 
that were raised throughout the investigation," said a statement from 
Platform released yesterday. The statement also said the company would 
work with the city system to "address any remaining concerns."

A spokeswoman for Newton Learning, Laura Eshbaugh, said the company "has 
tried hard to be responsive to all the concerns that have been raised by 
the district."

The investigation suggested the companies' practices were not unique, 
and that other companies also "engaged in questionable practices."

The inquiry began in September 2004, after a supervisor in the school 
system complained that a Platform Learning representative had approached 
several principals with an offer to pay each of their schools $5,000 if 
they enrolled 150 or more students in Platform's program.

According to the report, Michael Davis of Platform gave $2,000 to a 
renovation fund for Public School 89 in Queens at the request of Casper 
Cacioppo, the principal. Mr. Cacioppo told investigators that he thought 
his request was permitted.

He did not return a phone call yesterday seeking comment.

The report also said that Mr. Davis gave $500 for a scholarship fund to 
Everett Hughes, the principal of Intermediate School 292 in Brooklyn. 
Mr. Hughes said he had not requested the money. He also did not return a 
telephone call seeking comment.

Another Platform representative gave $1,500 to Public School 123 in 
Manhattan, the report found.

In another case, a principal claimed that a different Platform 
representative had offered her a trip to Puerto Rico, but the 
representative denied it.

The report found that a variety of incentives were offered to students, 
including gift certificates, CD players and tickets to sporting events. 
In some cases, the offers were withdrawn after questions were raised.

The report also found that Platform employees, using information from 
school officials, inappropriately recruited students at their homes, 
even suggesting, incorrectly, that children had to apply for tutoring to 
get free lunch. In some cases, the report said, the officials denied 
giving out student information.

Mr. Condon said one of his most disturbing findings was that the 
tutoring companies had failed to check employees' backgrounds, in some 
cases because of holes in City Education Department rules that have 
since been tightened.

After fingerprints were checked, he wrote, it was determined that 
several Platform employees had been arrested for crimes including 
attempted murder and the sale of drugs, and that several Newton 
employees had been arrested for crimes including robbery and the 
criminal sale of a controlled substance.

Mr. Cantor said that several Platform representatives named in the 
report would be barred from the city schools, and that the company would 
not be able to enroll any new students until it proved that its policies 
had changed. The department, he said, was still considering how and 
whether to discipline principals and parent coordinators mentioned in 
the report.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/nyregion/08tutor.html