GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

how things work

Tutoring lobby backs bill that would undo a state reform effort

Under pressure from the for-profit tutoring industry, lawmakers in Albany are backing a bill that would subvert the state’s efforts to change the way extra help is delivered to needy students.

Last month, New York won permission from the Obama administration to give federal funds that had gone to the tutoring companies to a group of organizations that state officials would vet.

Under the legislation promoted by the tutoring companies and peddled to lawmakers, that change would be revoked. State lobbying records show that the legislation followed a spending spree of tens of thousands of dollars in the last six months by the tutoring industry.

The sponsor of the bill in the Assembly, Karim Camara, said in an interview today that he decided to introduce the legislation after a lobbyist hired by a Miami-based tutoring company brought it to him.

“I saw the bill, I read the bill. So I decided to introduce this bill,” Camara said.

Education committee chair John Flanagan sponsored a companion bill in the State Senate.

Concerns about the services private tutoring companies were providing needy students were one impetus behind the Obama administration’s decision to let states apply to escape some requirements of the decade-old No Child Left Behind law. The law mandated that districts spend some funds earmarked for poor students on tutoring providers that were prevented from having a relationship with states, districts, or schools. Last year, the tutoring, known as “supplemental educational services” funneled nearly $1 billion to hundreds of tutoring companies.

Last month, New York became one of 19 states to receive an NCLB waiver.

“We gave New York a waiver to remove obstacles to reform,” said U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement. “I don’t think it makes any sense for Albany to put new ones in the way.”

The bill does not appear likely to pass during the current legislative session, which ends tomorrow. But supporters of the bill said if it fails now they plan to introduce it again next year.

New York’s legislation is part of a concerted, multi-state campaign by the tutoring lobby to preserve the rules that existed under NCLB in states that have received waivers. The campaign, organized by an advocacy group called Tutor Our Children, is funded by SES providers and has already resulted in similar legislation in Maryland and Florida, where a law preserving SES tutoring passed just after the state won its NCLB waiver in March.

“USDOE just accepted our waiver application that will remove obstacles to reform and help our students achieve college and career readiness,” said State Education Commissioner John King, in a statement. “It doesn’t make sense to start throwing new obstacles in the way of that reform, and that’s exactly what this bill does.”

Camara said he felt compelled to support the legislation because many needy students stand to lose free tutoring services. In New York City, more than 50,000 students are currently enrolled in SES tutoring programs.

New York’s NCLB waiver would still require the state to provide additional services for struggling students. The difference would be that the state would be able to decide how to structure those services. Instead of paying private operators, the state could allow districts to use the funds to support relationships between schools and community partners.

In New York City, tutoring companies were found multiple times to have billed for services they could not prove they had provided. In April, the U.S. Justice Department sued Princeton Review, a major test-prep company, of bilking the city of millions of dollars when it was providing SES tutoring.

The shift could cut deep into the profits of tutoring providers, many of which sprung up to capitalize on NCLB’s tutoring mandate.

In Albany, Tutor Our Children hired Hinman Straub Advisors, a law firm, to push the bill, at a price tag of $7,000 a month, according to state lobbying records. The contract started in late January, shortly before the state asked the U.S. Department of Education for a waiver.

A tutoring company that is part of the Tutor Our Children coalition, Rocket Learning, entered into a separate contract with a different lobbyist, the YorkGroup, in March. It was the YorkGroup’s head, Tiffany Raspberry, who brought the bill to Camara, he said.

And another tutoring company, Academic Advantage, hired a third lobbying group, JJMH Consulting, just 10 days ago to press legislators to support the bill.

When the York Group registered its contract with the state in March, it said it intended to lobby the New York City Council. Last month, two council members sponsored a resolution to support the state bill.

“It doesn’t matter to me if it’s for-profit or non-profit if it’s a good program,” Robert Jackson, the council’s education committee chair and one of the resolution’s sponsors, said today, even as he said the bill is “complicated.”

Tutor Our Children touted the council resolution in a May ”legislative alert” that it disseminated to ask parents and SES providers to contact lawmakers to express their support for the state bill. The alert did not explain that the beneficiaries of the bill would be for-profit vendors, instead thanking recipients for their “support for free tutoring for needy students.”

The alert also encouraged its supporters to “thank Assemblyman Camara and Senator Flanagan for introducing this important legislation.”

Camara said he was not concerned that the bill would maintain a marketplace for for-profit providers.

“I know there are a lot of great companies that are defined as a legal entity as for-profit,” he said. “What I’m more concerned about is whether or not these organizations are doing great work to close the persistent achievement gap.”

Camara said he was not optimistic that the bill would make it through the Assembly before the legislative session ends. Last week, the State Senate passed its version of the bill, which was sponsored by education committee chair John Flanagan. Flanagan did not return calls for comment today.

Two operators of nonprofits that would stand to benefit from the waiver criticized the bill in an opinion piece posted today on Huffington Post. Richard Buery runs the Children’s Aid Society, which operates after-school programs, and Nitzan Pelman is the head of Citizen Schools, which provides a second shift of educators to extend the school day. (Pelman also serves on an advisory board to GothamSchools.)

“Current SES programs are often poorly coordinated with school-day instruction, and success is often driven more by marketing budgets than impact on students,” they wrote. “New York can put these funds to better use.”

CORRECTION: This article originally stated that the State Senate had passed its version of the supplemental educational services bill. It has not.

  • KitchenSink

    As expected 10 years ago, NCLB benefited SES providers more than children.  The tutoring has been ineffective.  Removing these tutoring services will in most cases help children. This bill is misguided.

  • Nychistoryteacher

    “I saw the bill, I read the bill. So I decided to introduce this bill,” Camara said.

    There isn’t very high level analysis being done in the legislature.

  • http://nyceducator.com/ NYC Educator

    If I recall correctly, a tutoring group I’ve seen collected all sorts of money but was in no rush to share it. They told members of our staff, “We’re here to help children, not pay teachers.” I gave the individual who said that an earful, rather publicly, and he didn’t say such things anymore. Nonetheless, I left with the understanding they kept whatever funds didn’t get disbursed. If anyone knows better, I wouldn’t mind being corrected.

  • Mr. Flerporillo

    This ends with Shelly Silver filibustering a Marmaduke comic strip.  

  • Dan Bassill

    I’ve felt since the beginning of NCLB that the supplemental services tutoring was a flawed strategy. Kids in neighborhoods with failing schools have many different issues of poverty and family that contribute to their ability to learn.  This Defining Terms article shares my thinking about this. http://www.scribd.com/daniel-f-bassill-7291/d/69631464-Defining-Terms-Tutoring-Mentoring?in_collection=3299390

  • http://learnerfirst.org/ Learner First

    As an SES provider, I would like to voice support for those providers like Learner First whose students HAVE shown marked improvement on their post test scores and have had a profound positive impact in the education of their students.  Learner First does work diligently to partner with schools to implement programs that are aligned with what is being done during the school day as well as bring a fresh approach by utilizing Blended Learning.  I agree that there are elements of NCLB that are flawed, but SES tutoring is the one true parent choice provision of ESEA that finally gave low income people some amount of control over the education of their children.  Remember, parents were given the choice to sign up their children for free tutoring under NCLB because their school was identified as a School In Need of Improvement.  Perhaps the formula for identifying whether a school is identified as not making yearly progress needs to change, and perhaps SES should only be made available to the sub-population that was identified as not making progress, and certainly SES providers should be rigorously evaluated to ensure their programs are effective, but don’t take away low-income parents option to do something about their children’s education when their needs are not being met.  

    Learner First has many supporters from district superintendents to Kindergarten students who love our blended learning model and will continue to work with us moving forward should SES not exist.  However there are thousands of parents whose children are struggling and they have neither the resources nor the options to do something about it.  As my mother would have said “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”  Fix the way SES is delivered and be more rigorous in selecting who delivers these services, but don’t take away parents’ options to help their children.  

  • Nychistoryteacher

     ”SES providers should be rigorously evaluated to ensure their programs are effective”
    I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be part of the bill that your industry is pushing. From a teacher’s perspective, it seems like the SES providers benefit from a “rigorous” evaluation of schools, but SES providers don’t apply the same rigorous evaluation to themselves. This theme of different evaluations or no evaluations of private contractors seems like a persistent one in education. 

    The part of the SES provision that is the most disconcerting is that private tutoring companies are the only ones providing tutoring. What is the problem with a team of teachers providing the tutoring? If we accept the idea that competition produces better results, allowing teachers to compete against these private companies then rigorously evaluating their results would produce even better outcomes. You could even hedge your bets by only allowing teachers who have met a certain TDR threshold to provide the tutoring.

    The SES provision in NCLB and the bill being pushed by the tutoring lobby appear to be little more than a handout to the private sector.

  • http://learnerfirst.org/ Learner First

    Any teacher or group of teachers can become an approved SES provider.  NYSED has made the process very accessible and transparent.  

    There are thousands of low-income parents and students who would disagree that SES is just a handout to the private sector.  

  • mt

    SES works and I have seen it work! I am sad to see it go and this will allow Districts to be in control of more money and I do not believe that they will use it correctly. 

  • Neelsaj99

    Please someone show us facts. Show us the reports for the students who were tutored under SES. I see and hear every hour,every day from both schools, teachers and parents that the students are improving tremendously so they should be the ones to make a decision. Call up every SES parents on USA soil and ask them-Is SES working for your child? If they say yes-Let it renew! If they say no-We will rest our case!
    Patiently waiting for the dust to settle so we can all see that SES DOES WORK! 

  • Sessuf4

    I have worked directly with these children and have seen the benefit SES on children’s school grades, comprehension, and comfortability with academic work. The SES program I work with in Queens has received parent surveys that indicate above average positive feelings toward the impact that the program has had on their children. The facts are most certainly there. 

  • Nskellogg

    The process for securing SES for individual children is cumbersome and confusing, some students qualify and others do not.  It creates more problems for schools having to explain these “guidelines” to parents and the service is of no benefit to children whose families are not able to secure it (even when they qualify).  Students who do not have parents or guardians actively pursuing SES are essentially “left behind.”  In contrast,  an extended day learning environment where a second shift of teachers comes in is a huge benefit to the whole student population.

  • http://learnerfirst.org/ Learner First

    You raise a good point about accessibility.  One of the goals of NCLB was to have schools partner with outside companies & agencies to bring in some new approaches to learning.  What I would love to see is that schools partner with providers to do an after school program that has a unique approach to what is being done during the day.  Sometimes the novelty of seeing it presented online or through some other media enables students to have that Aha moment.  

    It has always been difficult for me as an educator to have to tell parents that they are not eligible for the free tutoring.  In NYC alone Learner First provided 2,267 hours of tutoring that we did not bill for.  That was for both students who did not qualify and additional hours after eligible students hours were exhausted.  

  • Neelsaj99

    SES gets all parties involved so the results have to be good. It is a tutor, tutee, the parents and the school’s involvement. Why would it not deliver results since many  parties are in unison. I have many parents program evaluations who have been very satisifed with the services. I feel the program is working when the parents come and hug us and say, “Thank you so much, my son is doing so well in school”. This only brings tears of joy. DOE can add more accountability for the vendors,raise the bar on them but please do not take away SES from these students and parents. SES is a step stool to reach college.

  • Nina1_2

    SES never had a chance to become finer tuned because LEAs were too busy trying to figure out how to shut it down early on to care otherwise. I am a parent who has seen my son benefit from the program. I don’t think I’m alone. For many students this is the only way they really get to learn what they for whatever reason aren’t able to learn during school hours.

  • Kathy L

    I believe that SES DOES truly make a difference in a child’s education and perception of education when it is administered properly by a provider who cares about the child’s needs and does their very best to meet those needs.  While I will agree that many SES providers are only “in it for the money” there are many that are focused on providing quality services and programs to the students to benefit their educational process.  I think it would be much easier for the providers to place their focus on the quality of the services that they are providing if the school districts would not place so many restrictive barriers and if there were a more “streamlined” reporting requirement.  So many districts have made it a requirement to submit documents on THEIR forms when many times what the SES provider already has in place far exceeds the level of detail on the district paperwork.  It gets difficult to comply with the district demands for “their forms” and other special requests, that they get bogged down in the bureaucratic details and don’t have the time to focus on the whole purpose of the NCLB mandate – which is to HELP THE STUDENTS! 

    I think there needs to be some standardization with reporting requirements and less “nitpicking” over how the data is presented and more focus on student improvement and programs that work for them.

  • Dell11221

    Having experienced the inside of an SES organization I could tell you that most of the companies I encoutered focused primarily on earnings rather then education,  I know there were good SES providers but most spend massive amounts of tax payers money on marketing and staff salaries that had no impact on a child’s education.  In addition, the lack of DOE oversight of SES compaines is disturving.  There is a lot of room for corruption, not only on the companies end but on the tutor providing the services.  Tutors are being paid high salaries to go to a child’s home to tutor them.  Theny might tutor the child for 30 minutes and bill for 2 hours. Many SES providers were aware of this and let it go because getting paid as well. The NCLB needed a reform and I’m glad States are finally taking an initiative to improve after school educational assistance.  

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

3 comments so far today

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031