Friday, May 25, 2012

Princeton Review Law Suit: My Thoughts


The reality is that the case of Princeton Review, Inc. vs. The Federal  Government will get settled and it will be labeled a "victimless crime." There will be no trial and Princeton Reviews’ insurance will pay out the government. The thieves will get away with it and this case settlement will be long forgotten. Everyone will let this slip under the rug.

But the real victims here are the children, the students who never had the chance and benefit of high quality tutoring and test preparation, because I have seen first-hand at Kweller Prep what an incredibly positive impact high quality tutoring can have on a child. We have no government subsidies, so any kids we take low cost or on scholarship comes out of my pocket,

I'm very familiar with Princeton Review, and not surprised by the allegations. I run my own boutique test prep and tutoring center (Kweller Prep Tutoring in New York) and could never understand how The Princeton Review Company can keep their rates so low, never check homework, and not carefully monitor student progress while they seem to have so much staff. I also thought always thought that it was illegal for them to obtain private student data from public schools, such as home addresses and emails (beware! You can never get off a Princeton review email list serve!)

 I always suspected this company of bribing school officials or doing something shady. They seem to be in almost every low income school in New York, yet I never heard of their effectiveness from even one.

 We also had many students who went to Princeton Review prior to going to Kweller Prep, and they kept complaining how disorganized the program was at their school. We took such students at a huge discount, because they had already spent precious money on another program. I always felt so bad for the Princeton Review Kids in particular, because they usually would hear about Kweller Prep after taking Princeton Review and wasting their time, and wind up re-taking the SAT senior year.

Well, I guess when the government pays $75 per student per hour for group tutoring,  where there are 30 kids enrolled in a class, it all makes sense.

Shame on the Princeton Review, and shame on the Federal Government for knowing about this fraud since 2006, but not doing anything about it until they collected more evidence.



Perhaps the most stressful time in a student’s academic life is preparing for the SAT’s. My heart goes out to the kids who put their faith into the Princeton review and to all the parents who thought they were getting a “discount.” Shame on them for doing this to New York City children.  

Princeton Review Sued By Feds For Fraudulent Tutoring Services Claims In New York City Schools

Federal prosecutors say The Princeton Review, a leading test-preparation company, fraudulently claimed "millions of dollars" of federal money for tutoring services it never provided to hundreds of underprivileged students in New York City.

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General and New York State announced Tuesday that a civil fraud lawsuit was filed in federal court against The Princeton Review and its former employee-director Ana Azocar. The governments seek punishments and damages under the False Claims Act. (Read the full complaint below).
According to the suit, a city investigation found misconduct in 2006, but the company continued to submit and receive false claims between 2006 and 2010, when the company closed its school tutoring division, for reimbursement under the federal Supplemental Education Services tutoring program.


The initiative, mandated for low-performing students at underperforming schools under the federal No Child Left Behind law, provides reimbursement to providers based on the volume of students tutored. Princeton Review's documentation of students served were sign-in sheets from tutoring sessions, and tutoring supervisors -- like Azocar -- were given bonuses if attendance was high.
But the company and some of its employees forged student signatures, falsified sign-in sheets and provided fake certifications to "deceitfully profit from a well-meaning program," the United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, said in a statement Tuesday. The program was paid between $35 and $75 an hour for each student it claimed to tutor.

The suit argues that the company's bonus system incentivized fraud, and supervisors pressured site managers to falsify numbers, as evidence shows "obvious" forgeries and falsifications. Azocar, the suit alleges, was paid bonuses of $9,600 and $6,600 in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Below: A chart from the lawsuit shows how often Princeton Review claimed reimbursements for tutoring services for students who were absent or when school was closed, and how much was paid from the federal fund to the company.

Names were sometimes misspelled on student attendance sheets, and signatures changed in appearance from class to class. Reimbursement claims were also made for tutoring sessions held for students were were abroad or when schools were closed -- the suit claims that 19,000 such incidents occurred between 2006 and 2010. The company sought claims for a supposed 74-student tutoring session on New Year's Day at a school in the Bronx and for a student who was in Mexico for a family vacation when the student's signature was written onto attendance.
Princeton Review does not currently serve all city schools, though some have hired the company to provide test prep courses for exams like the SAT, according to GothamSchools. More than 100 other companies are eligible to offer Supplemental Education Services tutoring to students in New York City as the number of eligible students increased this year while an unprecedented number of schools failed to meet federal performance benchmarks.



In a statement Tuesday, the Princeton Review did not deny the claims but noted that the alleged improprieties are in the company's past -- and ended when its Supplemental Educations Services division was discontinued in 2010. The company says it is working with prosecutors to resolve the charges and none of the employees or executives involved in the program are still with the company.
Alleged dishonesty associated with Princeton Review's bonus incentives is reminiscent of widespread cheating among Atlanta Public School educators, in which teachers and school administrators said they were pressured to maintain high scores under No Child Left Behind, as student performance on standardized exams is tied to school funding and teacher performance assessments.

A number of school districts offered bonuses to teachers who had students with significant gains to testing scores. An investigation into the scandal found that Atlanta Public Schools officials created a culture of "fear, intimidation and retaliation."
But the overhead pressure wasn't unique to Atlanta. School districts from Washington, D.C. to Pennsylvania to Texas to California saw similar problems, often identified by test erasure analyses, as investigations launched in systems across the country.
A Detroit Free Press survey last July reported that nearly 30 percent of public school educators say pressure to cheat on standardized exams is a problem at their schools, particularly at schools that don't meet federal standards, where 46 percent say cheating is an issue.

To lessen the strain of a one-size-fits all approach to student assessments, the Education Department has issued waivers to 11 states, allowing them more freedom from No Child Left Behind -- the Bush-era law that requires annual testing, results of which are tied to consequences for low-performing schools. States that seek waivers from the Obama administration are required to adhere to a measurement, curriculum and assessment plan proposed during the application process. An additional 26 states have applied for waivers.

Princeton Review Sued by Federal Government

Princeton Review offers cheap SAT prep courses, gets enrollment high, then apparently forges signatures saying the kids never dropped out of the course to collect $75 an hour per student for SAT prep. One kid was in Mexico on a family cacation when his signature "magically" appreader on the sign in sheet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/princeton-review-sued-by-_n_1471006.html

2.DuringtheCoveredPeriod,PrincetonReviewwasaproviderofSupplementalEducationalServices("SES")inNewYorkCity.Assuch,PrincetonReviewprovidedafter-schooltutoringtounderprivilegedstudentsattendingunderperformingpublicschoolsinNewYorkCity.Inexchangeforprovidingthesetutoringservices,theNYCDOEpaidPrincetonReviewafixedamountofmoneyperhourforeachstudentthatPrincetonReviewtutored.ThismoneyconsistedentirelyoffundsprovidedtoNewYorkStatebythefederalGovernmentundertheElementaryandSecondaryEducationActof1965,asamendedbytheNoChildLeftBehindActof2001.3.DuringtheCoveredPeriod,PrincetonReviewenteredintocontractswiththeNYCDOE.Pursuanttothesecontracts,PrincetonReviewwasrequiredtorecordattendanceateachofitsSEStutoringclassesonadailybasis.Foreachtutoringclass,PrincetonReviewwasrequiredtohaveeachstudentwhoattendedsigninandsignoutonastandardattendanceform.Asaconditionofgettingpaidforitstutoringservices,PrincetonReviewwasrequiredtocertifytotheNYCDOEthatitsattendancerecordswere"trueandaccurate."4.ManyofthePrincetonReviewemployeeswhooversawtheday-to-dayoperationsofPrincetonReview'sSESprogram,however,didnotaccuratelykeeptrackofdailystudentattendance.Rather,theyroutinelyfalsifiedentriesonPrincetonReview'sdailystudentattendanceformstomakeitappearasthoughmorestudentshadattendedtheprogramthanhadactuallyattended.Theseemployees("SiteManagers")werepressuredbytheirsupervisors("Directors")tomaintainhighdailystudentattendance,includingbybeingthreatenedwithterminationand/orhavingtheirpaycut.Moreover,Azocar(aDirector)instructedand/orencouragedsomeoftheseSiteManagerstofalsifyentriesonthedailystudentattendanceforms,includingbysigninginforabsentstudents.3
5.DuringtheCoveredPeriod,PrincetonReviewhadanincentivecompensationsystemthatencouragedthefalsificationofstudentattendancerecords.PrincetonReviewpaidDirectorssubstantialbonusesiftheSiteManagerstheysupervisedconsistentlyreportedhighdailystudentattendance.Forexample,Azocarwaspaidbonusesof$9,600and$6,600in2008and2009,respectively,becausetheSiteManagersshesupervisedconsistentlyreportedhighdailystudentattendance.Directorsthereforehadastrongincentivetopressureand/orinstructtheirSiteManagerstofalsifyentriesonthedailystudentattendanceforms,andSiteManagersinturnhadastrongincentivetofalsifysuchentries-theywantedtokeeptheirjobsandnothavetheirpaycut.6.PrincetonReview'sdailystudentattendanceformsfromtheCoveredPeriodarerepletewithfalsifications.Forexample,thereareinstanceswherethestudents'allegedsignatureslooknothingliketheiractualsignatures.Therearealsoinstanceswherethestudents'allegedsignatureschangeinappearancefromclasstoclass.Inaddition,thereareinstanceswherethestudents'allegedsignaturescontainmisspellings.Inonesuchinstance,thefirstname"Dontae"wasmisspelled"Donate."Moreover,thereareinstanceswhereparentshaveconfirmedthattheirchildrendidnotattendPrincetonReview'sSESclassesonspecificdayswhenthechildren'spurportedsignaturesappearondailystudentattendanceforms.OneparenthasstatedthatherchildwasinMexicoonafamilyvacationonfourdayswhenthechild'spurportedsignatureappearsondailystudentattendanceforms.Thechild'spassportconfirmsthatthechildwasinfactinMexicoonthefourdates.Anotherparenthasstatedthatherchildwasathomerecuperatingfromsurgeryonthreedayswhenthechild'spurportedsignatureappearsondailystudentattendanceforms.Theparenthasacopyofadoctor'snoteexcusingthechildfromschoolonthesethreedates.
4
7.PrincetonReviewusedthesefalsifieddailystudentattendanceformstoprepareinvoicesthroughwhichitbilledtheNYCDOEforitsallegedtutoringservices.PrincetonPrincetonReviewcertifiedthattheinformationontheinvoicewas"trueandaccurate."ReviewsubmittedtheseinvoicestotheNYCDOEonamonthlybasis.Foreachsuchinvoice,Notwithstandingthesecertifications,most,ifnotall,ofthemonthlyinvoicescontainedfalseinformation;theinvoicesbilledtheNYCDOEforthousandsofhoursofSEStutoringthatPrincetonReviewneveractuallyprovided.Asaresultofthesefalseinvoices,PrincetonReview8.Notably,therearethousandsofinstancesduringtheCoveredPeriodwherewaspaidmillionsofdollarsfortutoringservicesthatPrincetonReviewneverinfactprovided.PrincetonReviewbilledtheNYCDOE-andwaspaidbytheNYCDOEusingfederalfunds-forprovidingtutoringservicestostudentsondayswhenthestudentswereabsentfromschoolsuchinstances.orwhenschoolwasclosed.Indeed,fortheperiod2006-2010,thereareapproximately19,0009.TheUnitedStatesseekstrebledamagesandpenaltiesundertheFalseClaimsAct("FCA"),31U.S.C.§§3729,
etseq.,
formoneypaidtoPrincetonReviewfortutoringservicesthatPrincetonReviewdidnotprovide.
,
JUlUSDICTIONANDVENUE
10.ThisCourthasjurisdictionpursuantto31U.S.c.§3730(a),28U.S.C.§§1331and1345,andtheCourt'sgeneralequitablejurisdiction.11.Venueisappropriateinthisjudicialdistrictpursuantto31U.S.C.§3732(a)and28U.S.C.§§1391(b)and(c),becausePrincetonReviewtransactsbusinesswithinthisdistrictandthereforeissubjecttopersonaljurisdictioninthisdistrict.Inaddition,thefraudulent
5
activitiesofDefendantsthatgaverisetothisaction,andthatareallegedinthiscomplaint,tookplacewithinthisdistrict.
PARTIES
12.PlaintiffistheUnitedStatesofAmerica.13.DefendantPrincetonReviewisaDelawarecorporationwithitsprincipalofficeslocatedat
111
SpeenStreet,Framingham,Massachusetts01701.DuringtheCoveredPeriod,PrincetonReviewalsomaintainedofficesinNewYorkCityat160VarickStreet,NewYork,NewYork10013.14.PrincetonReviewwasfoundedin1981toofferpreparationcoursesfortheScholasticAchievementTest(the"SAT").Today,PrincetonReviewbillsitselfasaleadingproviderofin-person,onlineandprinteducationalproductsandservices.15.DuringtheCoveredPeriod,PrincetonReviewprovidededucationalproductsandservicesthroughfourdivisions:(1)theHigherEducationReadinessdivision,throughwhichPrincetonReviewprovidedin-personandonlinetestpreparationcoursesfor,amongotherstandardizedtests,theSAT,theGraduateManagementAdmissionsTest,andtheLawSchoolAdmissionsTest;(2)thePennFosterdivision,throughwhichPrincetonReviewoperatedthePennFosterEducationGroup,whichprovidesonlinedegreeandvocationalprogramstostudentswithintheUnitedStatesandabroad;(3)theCareerEducationPartnershipsdivision,throughwhichPrincetonReviewenteredintostrategicrelationshipswithcollegesandotherinstitutionsofhighereducationtoenhancetheirabilitytoprovideonlinecoursesandprograms;and(4)theSupplementalEducationalServicesdivision(the"SESdivision"),throughwhichPrincetonReviewprovidedtutoringservicestounderprivilegedstudentsatunderperformingschoolsthroughoutthecountry.PrincetonReviewcloseditsSESdivisionandexitedtheSESbusiness6
afterthe2009-2010academicyear.TheallegationsinthissuitrelateexclusivelytoPrincetonReview'sprovisionofSEStutoringinNewYorkCityfrom2006to2010.16.DefendantAnaAzocarisaformeremployeeofPrincetonReview.From2006-2010,AzocarwasemployedwithinPrincetonReview'sNewYorkCitySESdivision.Duringthe2006-2007academicyear,AzocarwasaSiteManager.Thereafter,duringtheacademicyears2007-2008to2009-2010,AzocarwasaDirector.AzocarcurrentlyresidesinNewYork
FACTS
County,NewYork.
I.BACKGROUNDA.THESTATUTORYFRAMEWORKGOVERNINGTHEPROVISIONOFSES
17.TheNoChildLeftBehindActof2001(the"NCLBAct"),20U.S.C.§6301,
et
seq.,
wasacomprehensivereformoftheElementaryandSecondaryEducationActof1965(the"ESEA"),thefederalspendingprogramthatprovidesfundstoassisttheStatesandtheirlocaleducationalagencies("LEAs")intheeducationofelementaryandsecondaryschoolchildren.TitleI,PartAoftheESEA,asamendedbytheNCLBAct,providesfederalgrantstoassisttheStatesandtheirLEAsinimprovingtheacademicachievementofdisadvantagedstudents,andinensuringthatallstudentsmeethighacademicstandards.18.TitleIfundsaredistributedtotheStatesbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation("USDOE").Stateeducationalagencies,inturn,allocateTitleIsub-grantstoLEAs.Forexample,theUSDOEallocatesTitleIfundstotheNewYorkStateEducationDepartment(the"NYSED"),which,inturn,allocatesfundstoitsLEAs,oneofwhichistheNYCDOE.ThevastmajorityofTitleIfundsreceivedbyLEAsareallocatedtoTitleIschoolstobeusedattheschool-levelforactivitiesdesignedtoimprovestudentachievement.7
19.LEAs_.suchastheNYCDOE-mayuseaportionoftheirTitleIallocationtopayforSES.SESmayincludeafter-schooltutoring,aswellasremediationandothersupplementalacademicenrichmentservices.
B.THEPROVISIONOFSESTUTORINGINNEWYORKCITY
20.InaccordancewiththeESEA,asamendedbytheNCLBAct,theNYCDOEentersintocontractswithentitiesthatareapprovedbytheNYSEDtoprovideSEStutoringandareselectedbyparentsofeligiblestudentstoprovideSEStutoringtotheirchildren(collectively,"SESproviders").StudentsareeligibletoreceiveSEStutoringifthey:
(l)
arefromlow-incomefamilies;and(2)attendaTitleIschool
(i.e.,
aschoolthatreceivesfundsunderTitleI,PartAoftheESEA)thatisinitssecondyearofbeingidentifiedforimprovement,correctiveaction,orrestructuring.21.ParentsofeligiblestudentsreceivealistofallSESproviders.EachparentmayselectfromthislistoneSESprovidertoprovideSEStutoringtohisorherchild.OnceaparentselectsanSESproviderforhisorherchild,thechildisthenenrolledinthatparticularprovider'sSESclasses.22.SESprovidershireteacherstoprovideSEStutoringtothestudentsenrolledintheirSESclasses.SESprovidersareultimatelyresponsibleforoverseeingtheSESteachersandforensuringthattheirSESprogramsareadministeredproperly.23.TheNYCDOEpaysSESprovidersforeachstudenttheytutorwithfundsprovidedtotheNYSEDbythefederalGovernmentunderTitleI,PartAoftheESEA,asamendedbytheNCLBAct.
8