Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Hoboken K-12 Student Enrollment Drops Over 25% since 2010

An examination of the K-12 student enrollment over the past 5 years of the Hoboken Public Schools indicates that the total district K-12 enrollment has gone from 2039 children in 2010 to 1523 in 2014 according to state mandated ASSA (Application for State School Aid) reports filed by the district. This is a reduction of slightly more than 25% (see Figure 1). Moreover, when one considers that the number of school choice students has risen from 50 in 2010 to 166 (well over 200%), the reduction in the Hoboken resident population of K-12 enrollment is actually 32% (see Figure 2). 


Figure 1: 2010-2014 Total District K-12 Enrollment
CLICK TO ENLAGE  
Figure 2: 2010-2014 Total Resident District K-12 Enrollment
CLICK TO ENLARGE 
When the 2010 and 2014 ASSA data is broken down by grade we can see that the drop in enrollment is occurring at every grade but with particular emphasis between kindergarten and first grade and from third grade to sixth grade. There appears to be no change in high school enrollment, but one must consider that the majority of "school choice" students from outside of Hoboken are enrolled in the high school. The "bump" between grades nine and eleven is primarily due to "school choice" students-- a policy Superintendent Raslowsky and I were responsible for and Kids First opposed in the spring of 2009. Back then we were thinking of 10-20 students a year…not 8X that number which is currently being implemented. If not for "school choice" there would be at least 100 less students than the already low 416 students currently enrolled in the high school (see Figure 3)….a building designed for 1502 students


Figure 3: 2010 vs 2014 K-12 Enrollment by Grade*
CLICK TO ENLARGE  
*note: the "bump" in student enrollment in grades 9, 10, and 11 for 2014 is best explained by the 
increase in Choice (non resident) students. A program I brought to the district in 2009. 

This 25% drop in K-12 district enrollment (-516 children) far surpasses any increase in the charter school population over the same period. For instance, in 2010 there were 468 children in Hoboken's charter schools. In 2014 there were 631 children in Hoboken's charter schools or an increase of 163 children (Figure 4) vs. the over 500 students lost in the full district. 

Figure 4: K-12 Student Enrollment District and Charters
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Why is K-12 district enrollment plummeting? What exactly is going on? Its not certain why parents are abandoning the school district. It could be related to the drop in QSAC scores from 87% to 45% under the leadership of Curriculum Chair Person and current Board President Ruth McAllister (Tylor); 

Figure 5: Most recent results of the Instruction and Program
DPR for the Hoboken School District  
Perhaps its the violence and vandalism reports, perhaps its the graduation rates, perhaps its the NJ Report Card results, maybe its the test scores, maybe its the SAT results, perhaps its having 6 superintendents in 6 years? A general revoking door of principals? No doubt, its likely not one single reason. What is clear  however is that this rapid decline in enrollment of the public schools is not happening because of the city's charter schools. And the enrollment decline would be even more severe if the district wasn't accepting as many students from out of town (n=161) as part of the school choice program. 



Monday, April 20, 2015

Hoboken Ranks Among Worst Places in NJ for Families to Live

Our Lady of Grace Band; Washington St. circa 1950
While Hoboken has done fairly well recently in national polls and "best places to live" surveys, the recent ranking of Hoboken as last in cities in New Jersey to raise a family is bound to raise some eyebrows. Like most of these types of analyses, it matters what you are factoring and how much you are weighing them. -Dr. Petrosino 

Hoboken is one of the worst cities in New Jersey to raise a family, according to New Jersey Family magazine.
According to their website, the magazine ranked 512 municipalities with populations over 1,500 based on the following factors:
“We collected data for tax rates, average home sale prices, crime rates, public school district rankings, median household income, percentage of families with children under the age of 18, mean travel time to work, number of restaurants, number of hospitals within 10 miles and number of grocery/convenience stores within five miles. Based on the aggregated data for each of the 512 municipalities, we developed an algorithm to determine our ranking.”
Pennington in Mercer County topped the list as the best city for families to live in, followed by Oradell and Mendham Township.

SECOND OPINIONS
New Jersey Family magazine’s recent ranking is an controversial designation for a city that Livability.com named the second-best foodie city in the nation and the second-best city for liberals.
In 2014, Movato.com, a real estate blog that reports on stellar towns throughout the state, named Hoboken as the 9th best place to live in the state of New Jersey. [ See related Patch article]

Friday, April 17, 2015

Tensions between conceptual and metaconceptual learning with models (NARST, 2015)

Wrigley Building, Chicago IL April 2015 
The following is a paper and poster that was presented in Chicago, IL at the national convention of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). I present a short description of NARST, then the abstract of the paper and then the full paper that we handed out a the conference.

The National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) is a worldwide organization of professionals committed to the improvement of science teaching and learning through research. Since its inception in 1928, NARST has promoted research in science education and the communication of knowledge generated by the research. The ultimate goal of NARST is to help all learners achieve science literacy. NARST promotes this goal by: 1) encouraging and supporting the application of diverse research methods and theoretical perspectives from multiple disciplines to the investigation of teaching and learning in science; 2) communicating science education research findings to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers; and 3) cooperating with other educational and scientific societies to influence educational policies.

Mann, M. J., Delgado, C., Stroup, W. M., and Petrosino, A. J. (April, 2015) Tensions beween conceptual and  metaconceptual learning with models. Presentation at the Annual Conference of the National Association of research in Science Teaching. Chicago, IL.

Abstract: Models and modeling are prominent in the new US science education standards, being present as both a crosscutting concept and a science and engineering practice.  Yet, there is a gap between the way scientists use models and how models are used in the science classrooms.  Models have been shown to be very useful in achieving student gains in conceptual understanding of phenomena yet models may inadvertently foster inaccurate metaconceptual or epistemological understandings about the phenomenon. An evaluation of two ecosystem models was done to illustrate how these linked models could be used in the classroom to foster both conceptual and metaconceptual learning. Teachers need to be aware when using models of the conceptual outcomes as well as the metaconceptual outcomes; these are often in tension and must be navigated carefully. Students need to be exposed to multiple models during a unit that emphasize different aspects of the phenomena, supporting different conceptual understandings but also illustrating the nature of science and the limitations and strengths of modeling. As the science education community moves towards implementing the vision of the Next Generation Science Standards, metaconceptually aware teaching practices around modeling must come into place.

College is worth it if you have these six experiences

A degree has always been a marker of accomplishment—something that conveys value to the degree holder, employers, and society. Through the lens of Gallup’s research, it’s still true that a college degree is worth its weight in gold, but only for those graduates (and their alma maters) who made the most of their higher education experience as students. Graduates who strongly agree they had the following six experiences in college—which Gallup refers to as the “Big Six”—perform markedly better on every measure of long-term success compared with graduates who missed the mark on these experiences:
  1. a professor who made them excited about learning 
  2. professors who cared about them as a person 
  3. a mentor who encouraged them to pursue their goals and dreams 
  4. worked on a long-term project 
  5. had a job or internship where they applied what they were learning 
  6. were extremely involved in extra-curricular activities 
Graduates who hit the mark on experiencing the “Big Six” are significantly more likely than those who didn’t to strongly agree college prepared them for life outside of college, to be considered “thriving” in all five elements of well-being and to be engaged at work. And the percentage of those who finished their degree in four years or less is significantly higher among those who experienced the “Big Six” than among those who did not, 75% vs. 61% respectively. Keep in mind, these are all college graduates here. The differences in their outcomes, though, is astounding.



Is a college degree worth it? The good news is that for most college graduates the answer is: “yes.” But only if they made the most of it. For those who didn’t—which is a whopping 25% of all graduates—it’s a very different answer. This finding doesn’t in any way devalue higher education. But it does force us all to get serious about how we maximize the opportunity of higher education.

It starts with changing what we believe. If we believe a college degree is an automatic ticket to a better career and life, we fail. Students, parents, higher education staff and faculty, and employers need to work hard to ensure we are collectively making the most of it. If we believe the only measure of success is salary, we fail. There is so much more value to college than what we are systematically measuring now. We ought to pay careful attention to these less traditional measures and the things that correlate with them.

If we are concerned about graduates’ feelings of preparedness for the real world, their engagement in their work, their overall well-being and their on-time graduation rates, then we ought to redesign what the requirements of graduation entail. If it’s merely course credits and exams—without any of the crucial emotional support and experiential learning—we fail. The good news is we have an idea of what the winning formula looks like. Now we need to help parents and students understand how to make the most of college, and redesign accreditation and higher education values, models, and reward systems accordingly.

See how “Big Six” experiences are linked to key college, work and life outcomes:










Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Adjunct Faulty Rely More and More on Public Assistance for Sustenance

First and River Sts. Hoboken, NJ 
Adjunct faculty could use a $15 minimum wage, too. They're the second-class citizens of academe -- with no job security, few if any benefits, and they work for essentially peanuts. In fact, according to an analysis of census data by Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education, 25 percent of "part-time college faculty" and their families now receive some public assistance, such as Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, food stamps, cash welfare, or the Earned Income Tax Credit. That’s not as bad as fast-food employees and home health care aids, half of whom get government help, but it’s still fairly awful. (See below.)


Click to Enlarge 

We’re not talking about a small group here. According to the American Association of University Professors, more than half of all faculty hold part-time appointments. In other words, what’s happening in the rest of the economy is happening in universities as well – a large and growing population of “on demand” workers, many of whom can’t get by without some form of public assistance.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Hoboken Board of Education April 2015 Full Agenda - new superintendent, Hola, other items...

Willow Ave- Hoboken, NJ circa 1977
HOBOKEN BOARD OF EDUCATION
MEETING HELD IN DEMAREST AUDITORIUM
158 FOURTH STREET, HOBOKEN, NJ
7:00 P.M.

A number of items of interest including the hiring of a new superintendent (the Hoboken School District's 6th superintendent of schools in 6 years) and the appeal of the March 20, 2015 decision by the NJ Commissioner of Education concerning the Hola Dual Language Charter School. The HBOE wishes to hire special counsel with private donations from undisclosed sources to appeal the Commissioner's decision. 


Subject 11.21 Approval of HoLa Resolution
Meeting Apr 14, 2015 - AGENDA
Category
11. ACTION - GOVERNANCE AND PERSONNEL
Type Action (Consent)
Recommended Action

WHEREAS, by letter of March 20, 2015, the Commissioner of Education issued a revised decision regarding the expansion of the Hoboken Dual Language Charter School (HoLa); and

WHEREAS, this decision followed an appeal of the determination made by the Department of Education on March 28, 2014, which led the Department of Education to ask the appellate court for an opportunity to revisit its decision based on the issues raised by the Hoboken Board of Education; and

WHEREAS, the revised decision reflects many of the same flaws, including a failure by the Department of Education to consider accurate student census data, as well as the socioeconomic and financial impact of continued expansion on the Hoboken Public Schools; and

WHEREAS, the Board believes that these considerations are crucial to ensuring the well-being of our schools and the students they serve,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board authorizes special counsel to take any and all appropriate action to pursue appellate review of the March 20, 2105 decision and to insist that the educational and financial issues required by law are reviewed; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, from this point forward, the actions of special counsel will be funded not by taxpayer dollars, but by private donations to the Board specifically designated for that purpose.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

President Obama Honors UT Austin Geosciences Mentoring Program

Tenth graders on a GeoFORCE field trip in Florida. The University 
of Texas at Austin outreach program introduces high school students
from underserved areas to the geosciences.
For a number of years, one of my graduate students was very involved in this wonderful program. I incorporated some aspects of GeoFORCE into the UTeach Natural Sciences Program which I co-Founded at The University of Texas at Austin as well as some research opportunities. Great for GeoFORCE to receive this national attention, and happy to be involved with aspects of the program.  -Dr. Petrosino 
GeoFORCE Texas, an outreach program of the university’s Jackson School of Geosciences, takes high school students from disadvantaged areas in inner-city Houston and rural Southwest Texas on field trips each summer throughout high school, visiting geologically significant sites across the country. As a result, potential geoscientists are introduced to the profession, and students from disadvantaged areas find a path to college and rewarding careers.
“We are thrilled that the president has honored the program,” said Jackson School Dean Sharon Mosher. “GeoFORCE plays such an important role in shaping and improving young lives, particularly from underserved populations. There is nothing more fulfilling for an educator than helping young people achieve their full academic and personal potential. GeoFORCE is a wonderful example of a program doing just that.”
Eighty percent of GeoFORCE participants are members of minority groups. Since its inception, GeoFORCE has been a robust success, with 100 percent of students graduating from high school; 96 percent going on to college; 94 percent staying in college through their sophomore year; 64 percent focusing on STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) majors — more than double the national average; and 16 percent majoring in geoscience — more than 50 times the national average.
The Presidential Award recognizes the crucial role that mentoring plays in the academic and personal development of students studying science and engineering — particularly those who belong to groups that are underrepresented in these fields. A GeoFORCE representative will receive the awards at a White House ceremony later this year, and the program will receive $10,000 from the National Science Foundation.
“These educators are helping to cultivate America’s future scientists, engineers and mathematicians,” President Obama said in a press release honoring all of this year’s recipients. “They open new worlds to their students and give them the encouragement they need to learn, discover and innovate. That’s transforming those students’ futures, and our nation’s future, too.”
GeoFORCE began in 2005 and has served more than 1,500 students. The program is more than an introduction to the geosciences. It also offers high school students support through high school, help preparing for the SAT and ACT, guidance applying for college, and has awarded more than $2 million in scholarships. After high school, GeoFORCE continues to mentor students through college, into internships and the workforce.
View a video on GeoFORCE.
White House media release.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Hoboken Board of Education Proposes 2.36% Increase in 2015-16 Budget

Click to enlarge
The Hoboken Reporter recently ran a story indicating that Hoboken property owners are set to pay more in taxes for their public schools. This will be the third consecutive rise for the schools.The proposed school budget is approximately $68 million.

The new budget is 4.8 percent higher than the current year’s budget total. Of the full 2015-16 budget, $53.47 million will cover the district’s general operations, a 2.36 percent increase from the current budget.


The district is proposing a 4 percent increase in its local tax levy, from $39.4 million to just over $41 million. The average assessed property in Hoboken would see a $75 increase in school property taxes if the budget proposed is adopted without changes.


Click here for additional data on school spending in Hoboken 


The school board has raised taxes every year since it voted in 2012 to do away with the public’s right to vote on the school tax levy unless it grows by more than the state cap of 2 percent


Click to Enlarge
According to the article, the Hoboken Public Schools’ 2015-16 tax levy increase is allowed to exceed 2 percent because the district had banked $696,000 worth of flexible cap space by not taxing the maximum increase in recent years. As such, the budget should not have to be approved by a citywide referendum.
The Hoboken School District is ranked 67th out of 68 schools in their enrollment group (K-12 1800-3500 students) on per pupil spending. Hola is ranked 8th out of 88 schools in their enrollment group (Charter Schools). -NJDOE data 




Read more:  Hudson Reporter - School city taxes to jump again Increases blamed on state cuts charters health costs 

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

New Jersey Has Modest Public Pension Benefits by Stephen Herzenberg

Garden State Ranks 95th in Pension Generosity Out of 100 Top Plans Nationally
If you’d prefer to read a PDF version of this report, click here.
Stephen Herzenberg is Executive Director of the Keystone Research Center
December 17th, 2014  |  by   |  Published in Budget and Tax PolicyReports
While one of the central tenets of repeated calls for major changes to New Jersey’s public pension system is the claim that public employee pensions are overly generous, retirement benefits for the state’s public workers are already among the least generous of all large public-sector pensions in the country, in part because of cuts enacted in the pension reforms of 2011.
In fact, New Jersey ranks 95th in pension generosity among the country’s 100 largest plans.
95thgenerous
To arrive at a ranking for each plan, we measured three key dimensions of pension generosity: whether the plans offer inflation protection to retirees, how benefits are calculated and the amount employees contribute to their own retirement plans. (For the full methodology, see Appendix A.)
Here’s how New Jersey gets its low ranking for overall generosity:
• New Jersey retirees have no automatic protection against inflation. While 69 of the 100 largest plans offer retirees some inflation protection, cost-of-living adjustments for New Jersey retirees were suspended indefinitely by the 2011 legislative pension reforms.
• New Jersey uses a very low multiplier. The percentage by which New Jersey calculates state pensions per year of service – known as the multiplier – is among the lowest nationally, at 1.67 percent. This means pensions benefits equal 1.67 percent of final salary multiplied by the number of years of service; 1.67 percent is a lower multiplier than all but 21 of the 100 plans. New Jersey lowered the multiplier from 1.81 percent in 2011. 
• New Jersey employees pay more into the system than those in most other systems. New Jersey public employees contribute 6.93 percent of their salaries to their own pensions, more than 55 other plans in the top 100. By 2018, the employee contribution level for New Jersey pensions will rise to 7.5 percent, which is more than employees contribute today in about two-thirds of the top 100 plans.
In addition to being some of the least generous pensions in the country, New Jersey’s pensions are modest in dollar amounts, even though the Garden State remains one of the highest-cost states in which to live.
Pension benefits in New Jersey average $26,000. State employees receive $25,000 on average and local government employees about $16,000. Teacher pensions average $40,000.[1] While police and fire personnel receive higher average benefits, their benefits are inflated by comparison with other groups (both public and private) because New Jersey police and fire retirees do not receive Social Security. Correcting for this brings safety personnel average benefits down to $41,402.
avgpensionbenefits
Lastly, overall compensation for New Jersey’s public-sector workers is comparable to the state’s private-sector workers. Total annual compensation is 4.1 percent lower for public employees than for comparable private employees (with similar levels of education and other characteristics), according to a 2010 study by Professor Jeffrey Keefe of Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations.[2] The study confirmed that benefits are indeed higher for public employees than for comparable private employees, but found that public wages and salaries are lower by a more than offsetting amount, with the result that overall public-sector compensation slightly trails that in the private sector. There’s a reason people never say, “I’m leaving the private sector to go and make more money.”
The Real Pension Problem? The State’s Failure to Contribute
New Jersey’s real pension problem is lack of employer contributions, not overly generous retirement benefits.
The source of New Jersey’s unfunded pension liabilities is the state’s persistent failure to make annual required contribution payments. New Jersey ranks last among the 50 states – by a large margin – for the share of required pension contributions actually made since the early 2000s.[3] Gov. Christie exacerbated New Jersey’s worst-in-the-nation ranking in the last budget when he line-item vetoed $900 million in pension contributions and announced plans to short pensions by nearly $2.5 billion in the 2014 and 2015 budgets combined. This veto was unnecessary as well as imprudent because the Legislature had found a way to raise the needed revenue without burdening New Jersey’s middle class.
In sum, New Jersey’s pension benefits are not more generous than most other large plans, no matter the standard of comparison. What is out of line is New Jersey’s 50th-place ranking when it comes to making required employer pension contributions. Chronic underfunding is the primary reason New Jersey has an $83 billion unfunded pension liability. Solving New Jersey’s self-inflicted pension crisis requires the state to obey the law by contributing its legally obligated share.

Appendix A: Methodology
For this analysis, we combined New Jersey’s two biggest pension plans (the plans for teachers and for state/local government employees) with the 99 other largest pension plans for non-public safety personnel in a national state pension database.[4] This database is maintained by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA) and accessible online at http://www.publicfundsurvey.org/www/publicfundsurvey/normalretirementprovisions.asp.
To rank each pension plan’s overall generosity, we first compare our 100 largest state pension plans on three separate measures of pension generosity: 
• The strength of their automatic inflation protection (assuming 2.5 percent inflation). 
• The amount by which pensions increase with each additional year of public service as a percentage of “final average salary,” an amount commonly referred to as “the multiplier.” (Final average salary is usually calculated as the average salary over the final three or five years of an individual’s public service.)
• The amount employees contribute to their own pensions. When employees contribute less, we consider their pension more generous.
Overall generosity is determined by giving each pension plan a score out of 100 based on its rank on these three separate dimensions of pension generosity. A pension plan ranked first on one of the dimensions receives 100 points, a pension plan ranked 100th receives one point.
Adding up the three ranks generates the plan’s overall generosity score. The 1st-place-ranked and most generous pension plan received an overall score of 225.5. The least generous pension plan by far, with a score of 24.5, covers municipal employees in California’s Contra Costa County. The pension plan ranked 99th, the New Hampshire Retirement System, received an overall generosity score of 74.5, not far below New Jersey’s 85.

Endnotes
[1] The New Jersey Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission reports higher benefit levels because it reports the average for new retirees and it does not adjust police and fire benefits to take account of the fact that members do not participate in Social Security. See Truth and Consequence: Status Report of the New Jersey Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission, September 2014.
[2] Economic Policy Institute, Fact Sheet: New Jersey Public-Sector Workers Are Undercompensated Compared with Private-Sector Counterparts, February 2011, and Are New Jersey Public Employees Overpaid?July 2010.
[3] New Jersey Policy Perspective and Keystone Research Center, How to Dig an Even Deeper Pension Hole, September 2014.
[4] We exclude pension plans for safety employees such as police and fire, because these employee groups have more generous benefits in New Jersey and in most other states. Our estimates of the generosity of New Jersey’s pension plans are conservative in the following sense: in comparing other pensions to New Jersey’s pensions for teachers and state/local employees, if there was ambiguity in the generosity of other state pension plans compared to New Jerseys, we erred on the side of recording the other states’ systems as less generous.

Cash Monitoring List Unveiled- By Michael Stratford

Wallace Schoolyard- Hoboken, NJ 1976
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday, for the first time, named most of the hundreds of colleges whose federal aid it has restricted because of concerns about their finances or compliance with federal requirements.
The department released a partial list of the nearly 560 institutions that, as of March 1, were subject to the financial restrictions known as heightened cash monitoring. Most of the colleges -- 487 institutions -- were on the lower level of scrutiny, and 69 were subject to the higher, more stringent restrictions.
“We feel that by issuing this list today we’re doing what’s right for good government and transparency’s sake,” said Ted Mitchell, the under secretary of education.
The department continued to keep secret the identities of 21 of the 69 colleges that it placed on the highest level of monitoring, which means that department employees manually approve every dollar that flows to an institution. Nearly all of those unidentified colleges were on that status because a federal audit of the institution resulted in “severe findings.”  
“We have ongoing investigations at each of those institutions and we fear that, at this point, releasing those names would impede the progress of our investigation,” Mitchell said in an interview. He said the names of those colleges would eventually be released as the investigations are completed. 
‘A Caution Light’
Mitchell said that colleges may be placed on either form of cash monitoring for a range of reasons, some of which are more serious than others.
The department, for example, may impose the sanction on a college for submitting its financial statements late. That appears to have been the case for 43 public colleges and universities in Minnesota, all of which were on cash monitoring with the designation of “audit late/missing.”
At the other extreme, a college may land on cash monitoring because of serious concerns about its financial viability. Roxbury Community College, in Massachusetts, for instance, is on cash monitoring because of concerns about its "administrative capacity." The college released a report in 2013 that showed, among other things, that administrators had lost track of significant amounts of money.
A college being on the list “is not necessarily a red flag to students and taxpayers, but it can serve as a caution light,” Mitchell wrote in a blog post. “It means we are watching these institutions more closely to ensure that institutions are using federal student aid in a way that is accountable to both students and taxpayers.”
New Transparency Step
Before releasing the names of the institutions on cash monitoring Tuesday, the department had fought to keep the information secret. As recently as last week, the department said that disclosing the list was likely to result in a “substantial competitive injury” for colleges operating in a competitive marketplace.
The department reversed its position late last week after Inside Higher Ed reported that the cash monitoring information was largely being kept hidden from public view.
When Inside Higher Ed first requested the cash monitoring list last summer, the department denied the request and claimed that it did not keep such a list.
Going forward the department plans to publish the cash monitoring list online and update it on an ongoing basis, but it hasn’t yet decided how frequently, Mitchell said.  
Varying Levels of Scrutiny 
Many of the colleges on the lower level of monitoring, which typically places a several-day delay on colleges’ federal funding, are placed there automatically because they fail the department’s standards of financial responsibility.
Colleges and the groups that represent them have long complained that the methodology of those scores is out of date and doesn’t accurately reflect an institution’s financial health.  
"A lot of financially healthy institutions can find themselves on HCM1, for any number of minor reasons," said Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education. "HCM2 is a more serious problem, and institutions that are on there probably merit a close look."
Hartle said that although the department is rightly trying to make sure colleges have the financial and administrative capacity to receive federal funding, officials have not been clear about how they use the cash monitoring sanctions. 
"What institutions do to end up in that circumstance is not always clear," he said. "Because they're now making it public, the stakes are much higher, and the need for more disclosure and transparency by the department has increased."
For-Profits Dominate List
For-profit colleges made up more than half of the institutions on each level of heightened cash monitoring.
Of the 487 colleges facing the lower level of scrutiny, mostly for failing the department’s financial responsibility test, 290 were for-profit institutions. Similarly, for-profit institutions represented 39 of 69 colleges facing the more stringent restrictions.
Many smaller for-profit beauty, barber and cosmetology schools faced the highest level of monitoring, for a variety of reasons, including accreditation problems, high default rates and severe audit findings.
Large for-profit college chains also have some colleges on the list, such as Corinthian CollegesITT Educational Services, Education Management Corporation, and Career Education Corporation, including several of its Le Cordon Bleu campuses that are up for sale. Those publicly-traded companies had all previously disclosed their status to investors. (An earlier version of this paragraph incorrectly suggested that only some of these companies had told investors of their cash monitoring status.)
Noah Black, a spokesman for the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, said in response to the department’s release of the list that students "would benefit greatly not from another disclosure, but from clear, direct and accurate information."
He pointed to the “wealth of information that currently exists” on the department’s website, including various data points about colleges and universities that are collected and published by the government.
Trace Urdan, a senior analyst at Wells Fargo who focuses on for-profit education companies, said in a note to clients that the public disclosure of the list wouldn’t have a huge impact on stock prices. But, he said, the list “could have the effect of discouraging enrollment at named institutions, thereby exacerbating their enrollment challenges.”
He also said that there is “a strong likelihood that state regulators could demand disclosure of the sanction to prospective students, and/or impose their own sanctions on named schools.”




Institutions on Heightened Cash Monitoring 2:
Name
City, State 
Type
Reason
Arkansas Baptist College

Little Rock, Ark.
Private, Nonprofit
Administrative Capability
JRMC School of Nursing
Pine Bluff, Ark.
Private, Nonprofit
Audit -- Severe Findings
Asian-American International Beauty College
Westminster, Calif.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
David's Academy of Beauty
Pico Rivera, Calif.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
Community Christian College
Redlands, Calif.
Private, Nonprofit
Accreditation Problems
Galaxy Medical College
North Hollywood, Calif.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
Southern California University SOMA
Los Angeles, Calif.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
Real Barbers College (The)
Anaheim, Calif.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
California Career School
Anaheim, Calif.
Proprietary
Audit Late/Missing
American Beauty College
West Covina, Calif.
Proprietary
Other -- CIO Problems (Eligibility)
Potomac College
Washington, D.C.
Proprietary
Administrative Capability
SAE Institute of Technology -- Miami
North Miami Beach, Fla.
Proprietary
Administrative Capability
Ultrasound Medical Institute
Lantana, Fla.
Proprietary
Audit Late/Missing
Academy of Healing Arts, Massage & Facial Skin Care
Lake Worth, Fla.
Proprietary
Other -- CIO Problems (Eligibility)
Atlanta Beauty & Barber Academy
Doraville, Ga.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
American College of Hairstyling -- Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Proprietary
Audit Late/Missing
American College of Hairstyling -- Des Moines
Des Moines
Proprietary
Audit Late/Missing
Larry's Barber College
Chicago
Proprietary
Audit Late/Missing
Masters of Cosmetology College
Fort Wayne, Ind.
Proprietary
Administrative Capability
Collins School of Cosmetology
Middlesboro, Ky.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
Roxbury Community College
Boston
Public
Administrative Capability
International Beauty School
Cumberland, Md.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
Sojourner-Douglass College
Baltimore
Private, Nonprofit
Accreditation Problems
Missouri School of Barbering & Hairstyling -- St. Louis
Florissant, Mo.
Proprietary
Audit Late/Missing
eClips School of Cosmetology and Barbering
Cape Girardeau, Mo.
Proprietary
Default Rate
Fort Berthold Community College
New Town, N.D.
Public
Payment Method Changed
Little Priest Tribal College
Winnebago, Neb.
Private, Nonprofit
Administrative Capability
Total Image Beauty Academy
Union City, N.J.
Proprietary
Financial Responsibility
Bramson ORT College
Forest Hills, N.Y.
Private, Nonprofit
Accreditation Problems
Rabbinical Seminary of America
Flushing, N.Y.
Private, Nonprofit
Audit Late/Missing
Joffrey Ballet School, American Ballet Center
New York, N.Y.
Proprietary
Audit Late/Missing
Yeshiva Shaar Hatorah
Richmond Hill, N.Y.
Private, Nonprofit
F/S Late/Missing
Saint James Mercy Hospital School of Radiologic Sciences
Hornell, N.Y.
Private, Nonprofit
Financial Responsibility
VEEB Nassau County School of Practical Nursing
Uniondale, N.Y.
Public
Financial Responsibility
Ohio Mid-Western College
Cincinnati
Private, Nonprofit
Financial Responsibility
Institute of Therapeutic Massage
Lima, Ohio
Proprietary
Outstanding Liability/Offset
CC's Cosmetology College
Tulsa, Okla.
Proprietary
Program Review
Citizens School of Nursing
New Kensington, Penn.
Private, Nonprofit
Other -- CIO Problems (Eligibility)
Western Pennsylvania Hospital School of Nursing
Pittsburgh
Private, Nonprofit
Other -- CIO Problems (Eligibility)
Nashville Barber and Style Academy
Nashville
Proprietary
Administrative Capability
Shear Academy
Crossville, Tenn.
Proprietary
Audit -- Severe Findings
Texas Beauty College
Haltom City, Tex.
Proprietary
Accreditation Problems
(The department declined to name an additional 21 colleges that were subject to heightened cash monitoring 2.)