Colleges strive to create welcoming, inclusive communities for students from every background. But a new effort at George Washington University has scores of critics and supporters abuzz with heated comments that continue to pour in on various blogs and news articles. At the request of the university’s Muslim Students’ Association, George Washington began offering a once-weekly, female-only swim hour in March. But it only recently turned into an online debate over issues of religious and sexual discrimination and — though not always explicitly — racism, spurred by an article in the student newspaper, The GW Hatchet . The Lerner Health and Wellness Center pool closes to men for one of the 20 hours it’s open each week, with a tarp blocking the view through the glass door and a female lifeguard on duty. The university declined to comment for this article beyond a two-sentence statement that said its officials are reviewing the closure while they establish a formal recreational swim policy. ON THE WEB: Islam case still simmers MORE FROM INSIDE HIGHER ED: Muslim college opens doors A few highlights from Internet comments on The Washington Post ‘s and TBD’s recent coverage of the swim hour: “Should a minuscule minority force the overwhelming majority [to] abide by their rules or should it be the other way around?” “Western society should not accommodate to Islam on this point; it is Islam that should change.” And in rebuttal: “Come on, folks. An hour a week — what’s the big deal?” “It’s not an unreasonable request. ‘Women’ is like half the population.” Many comments not quoted here could easily be considered racially offensive. Despite the naysayers, Sisters’ Splash, as it’s called, is not the only special accommodation that a college has made for Muslim students. George Washington already has foot baths for pre-prayer rituals, and a handful of other institutions — including the University of Michigan-Dearborn and George Mason University — have them as well. In 2008, at the request of female Muslim students, Harvard University ran a one-semester pilot program that reserved six hours a week for female students only at one of its lesser-used gyms, though the program was discontinued after that semester. There’s also Gamma Gamma Chi Sorority Inc., an Islamic-based sorority that has five regional chapters, though not all are active. Shelley Mountjoy, a doctoral student at George Mason who briefly attended George Washington as an undergraduate, doesn’t much care what goes on at private colleges. But she takes issue with the foot baths at George Mason and with other religious accommodations at public universities. She is afraid that policies like the female-only swim hour will have a domino effect and spread to other colleges. “I don’t want my tuition dollars paying to accommodate somebody’s religion,” she said. “It’s not the entire campus’s religion. We don’t all have to subscribe to Islamic law.” Because George Washington is a private university, there are no constitutional issues with the swim hour, said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Should a similar program start up at a public university, the presence of church-state issues would depend on the many facts of the situation, such as whether access is religion-specific, Khan said. Mountjoy, who serves on the boards of Atheist Alliance International and the national Secular Student Alliance, is also the founder and president of the Secular Student Alliance chapter at George Mason. She said that although some criticism of the swim hour and other services might stem from a bias against Muslim people, she takes issue with any type of religious accommodation. “I actually think that it’s in everybody’s best interest to keep religion out of our public schools,” she said. “I would react the same if this was a Christian-only swimming hour.” Students say the criticism is mostly coming from off-campus. Shaeera Tariq, a sophomore at George Washington and vice president of the Muslim Students’ Association, helped initiate the swim hour. She said nobody really knew about it until the Hatchet article came out — and as it happens, she is a reporter at the paper and she pitched the article to her editor. “It definitely sparked a lot of debate amongst people, but it seems to me there is a definite positive sentiment on campus and people are in favor of it,” she said. “We’re not closing down the mall or something for an hour. We’re just closing down a pool that wasn’t used very often in the first place.” John L. Esposito , an Islamic studies professor and founding director of Georgetown University ‘s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, said many of the negative reactions undoubtedly stem from an “Islamophobia.” “It’s very clear that there’s a good chance many of them have a real problem accepting Muslims or Islam, and we’ve got to deal with that. In a pluralistic society, that form of bigotry and racism — we’ve dealt with it before and we’ve got to deal with it now,” Esposito said, referring to civil rights struggles. “It seems to me this is a perfectly understandable thing that we should be doing. All of these members of the community pay tuition and so faculty and administrators have to always be open to responding to and accommodating the needs of people.” Esposito cited numerous other ways institutions serve different groups: parking for people with disabilities, campus chapels for various religions, and excusing attendance for students celebrating religious holidays other than the traditionally recognized Christmas or Easter. “If there’s a segment of the community that can benefit from an accommodation, you make it when you can,” he said. “The fact is, they have rights and you have to accept it.” Zahin Hasan, president of the Muslim Students’ Association, said the number of women — Muslim and non-Muslim — who attend the swim hour varies. But the point is that the college is serving more students, better. “What I can’t understand is how utilizing an underused service, such as a gym pool, is a bad thing,” Hasan said in an e-mail. “Very few people know about the pool, and even fewer use it. The benefits of Sisters’ Splash far outweigh the few inconveniences it may present.” But, he added, a “great majority” of George Washington students have shown support for the swim hour. According to a 2005 Gallup report, gender inequality is one of American women’s top concerns about “the Muslim or Islamic world.” (Notably, many Muslim women perceive the promiscuity, pornography and public indecency portrayed in Hollywood images as mistreatment of women in the Western world, the report says.) It’s an issue that is mentioned frequently in online comments about the swim hour. One person wrote, “If Muslim women are too modest to wear ordinary swimsuits when they swim, then maybe they should stop swimming and go see a psychiatrist. Teaching sexual repression is wrong; making women feel that they are bad and wicked merely for having female bodies is wrong.” Another wrote, “If because of religious convictions they chose not to exercise that freedom, the rest of society should not validate it by accommodating it.” But the swim hour’s proponents — and there seem to be many — point out that about half of the student population can participate. And accusations of racism are not difficult to come by. “We’ve seen a number of these kinds of programs around the country. I think it goes way beyond Muslim women; I think there are enough women who would be more comfortable swimming in a same-sex environment that it would be of interest to women of all faiths in America,” said Ibrahim Hooper , a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “There is a cottage industry of Muslim-bashers that look for any opportunity to marginalize American Muslims or to demonize Islam, and any denomination of Islam in our society is going to be targeted by these people.” There is more to the issue than religion, though. Erin E. Buzuvis, an associate professor of law at Western New England College and co-founder and contributor to The Title IX Blog, said it’s unclear whether barring men from the pool constitutes a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law requiring gender equity in educational programs at federally funded schools and colleges. Men can still swim 95% of the time, so they’re not completely excluded. And if the program’s purpose is to accommodate a religious group, rather than women in general, that could work in the university’s favor. “The university might have a plausible defense that while this would technically be a form of gender discrimination, that they’re doing it to accommodate a student’s religion,” Buzuvis said. “If that weren’t an issue, I would say a female-only swim hour would be highly questionable under Title IX.”

Three beers, a can of Red Bull and a large espresso: no big deal, many college students might say. Three beers, a can of Red Bull and a large espresso times three or four, and they still might tell you they’re not intoxicated. Therein lies the danger of caffeinated alcoholic beverages, whose popularity has grown in recent years among college-aged drinkers, drawing the attention of concerned health officials, politicians and college administrators. Experts say that even one is a recipe for disaster, and so do officials at Ramapo College : they banned alcoholic energy drinks on campus this month. Peter Mercer, president of the New Jersey college, said students referred to the above concoction when describing the effects of drinks such as Four Loko, which is particularly popular around the campus. Four Loko is one of a few flashy, canned drinks that take the mixing out of the equation, making it that much easier for students to get dangerously intoxicated, faster. Mercer said concerned students told him the inexpensive 23-ounce, 12% alcohol energy drinks were “all of a sudden very popular,” and Four Loko was involved in a couple of incidents of excessive drinking. Since the start of fall semester, 23 people have been hospitalized with alcohol intoxication. ON THE WEB: Why do students take so long to grow up? MORE FROM INSIDE HIGHER ED: Are prescription drugs “cheating”? Mercer called Four Loko a “cynical product” whose only purpose is to get the drinker intoxicated quickly. Others agree: Glen L. Sherman, co-chair of the Alcohol and Other Drug Knowledge Community for NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, said the drinks are dangerous because of their apparent targeting of underage student consumers and their high alcohol content — drinking one can of Four Loko is the approximate equivalent of drinking four beers, according to an informational page NASPA recently posted on its website. “These beverages are of great concern to us,” Sherman wrote in an e-mail. “Each campus must decide what specific steps make sense to best educate students about and try to protect them from these risks, and to encourage students to make good decisions when they are confronted by them.” Ramapo’s ban is part of a “multi-pronged approach” addressing excessive alcohol consumption, Mercer said. Other measures the college has taken include increasing after-hours security measures in residence halls, tightening visitor policies and holding student focus groups. Those additional steps may be crucial for the ban to have even a shot at success. Kathleen E. Miller, a research scientist at the Research Institute on Addictions at the State University of New York at Buffalo, has studied college students’ use of energy drinks, both with and without alcohol. She said that if the college can’t ban drinks like Red Bull and vodka from local bars, it won’t be able to stop consumption of caffeinated alcoholic beverages. But the college can send a signal. “A college ban will make people take a second look and maybe they’ll be more aware of what they’re drinking,” Miller said. “It’s inherently potentially dangerous to mix caffeine and alcohol because you’re sending your body mixed signals.” The caffeine stimulates the system while the alcohol depresses it, making students feel less drunk than they actually are. Through her research, Miller found that students who consume energy drinks with or without alcohol are more likely to engage in risky behavior like drug use, smoking or binge drinking. That doesn’t necessarily mean the energy drinks cause the behavior, but there is a correlation. Energy drink consumption “isn’t necessarily a gateway behavior, but it is what you might call a red-flag behavior,” she said. In a June 2008 study published in the Journal of American College Health, Miller found that 26% of surveyed public university undergraduates reported consuming energy drinks mixed with alcohol in the past month, while about half said they’d done so more than once. Efforts at Ramapo have curbed and will continue to curb consumption of alcoholic energy drinks, Mercer said, but “it’s unrealistic to assume that it’ll be totally eliminated.” That’s not stopping him from trying, though: At the next meeting of the New Jersey Presidents’ Council, Mercer plans to make his case to other college and university presidents. “The risk for their students is just as high as the risk for mine,” he said. “I’ll tell them what I’ve done and hope that they may want to follow suit.” States such as New Jersey and New Mexico are considering banning the drinks entirely. The drinks are also on the federal government’s radar. Last November, the Food and Drug Administration threatened to ban the drinks if manufacturers could not prove they were safe for consumption. No regulations have been issued yet, but an FDA press officer, Michael L. Herndon, told Inside Higher Ed on Friday that the agency has received 19 responses from 27 manufacturers and distributors, and plans to evaluate those submissions and other scientific evidence “as soon as possible in order to determine whether caffeine can be safely and lawfully added to alcoholic beverages.” Herndon said the decision is a high priority but “could take some time.” But Mercer doesn’t need FDA regulations to deem the drinks unsafe, especially when it comes to students. “I don’t accept that it’s a rite of passage to collegiate life that people put themselves at risk,” he said. “I can’t accept that.”

Graduate schools are seeing steady growth as both recent college graduates and people already in the workforce seek to boost their job prospects in a still-dragging economy. “We see an increase in graduate school applications and enrollments whenever the economy really turns south,” says Nathan Bell, director of research and policy analysis for the Council of Graduate Schools. In its report last month, it said the number of applications to U.S. graduate schools grew 8.3% from 2008 to 2009. The council has tracked grad school enrollments annually since 1986 and surveyed 699 schools in 2009. Total enrollments increased 4.7% in 2009, compared to 3% the previous year. Last year more students than ever took the GRE, the exam required for many graduate programs, and this year may set record highs again, says David Payne, vice president of Educational Testing Service , the non-profit that develops, administers, and scores the GRE. Concern about the job market — and wanting to put off paying back student loans — were major factors for University of California-Davis senior Daniel Yeshiwas, who says he changed his plans to work for a few years before attending graduate school. He plans to apply for fall 2011. “I don’t really know exactly what I want to do yet, but going to graduate school, it’s still moving me towards a career, and it’s something to further put off that question of what I’m gonna do for the rest of my life,” says Yeshiwas. Danielle McManus, a pre-professional and pre-graduate program advisor at the UC-Davis, says reasoning like Yeshiwas’ is not uncommon; she adds that many students apply to grad school as a backup plan, in case they can’t find a job. “Graduate school seems better than the specter of aimless unemployment. If these students do manage to find a job, however, they might prefer to start making money right away,” she says. In just the past two years, “students have become so hyper-focused on career opportunities that these programs can provide for them,” says Rob Franek, publisher of The Princeton Review test prep and research company. “They are thinking about the value of professional experience through a recession lens.” The Princeton Review’s new guidebooks, The Best 172 Law Schools , The Best 300 Business Schools , and The Best 168 Medical Schools , can help students evaluate whether a graduate program’s value is worth the investment, says Franek; a “career prospects” rating, is included in both the law and business school guides. That rating combines several employment statistics, such as how many students are employed upon graduation, average starting salaries, career services offered, and the number of students employed a year after graduation. Advice for those considering grad school: •Leave at least six weeks to study before any qualifying exams like the GRE or the LSAT, says The Princeton Review’s Rob Franek, and consider different schools’ admissions criteria, (includeded in the company’s guides). •Trying to decide which program to pursue? “Think about which classes you’ve done best in and what you are most interested in, particularly because graduate school is so targeted and so specific,” says UC-Davis adviser Danielle McManus. She also recommends that students ask professors for advice. •Get free practice GRE questions through the ETS website; many MBA programs now accept the GRE, not just the GMAT, says ETS’ David Payne. “With employers, the undergraduate degree is becoming pretty much a required certificate or credential for entry level positions. To advance, a masters degree is becoming more the preferred,” he adds. “Best Career Prospects” Law schools 1. University of Pennsylvania 2. Northwestern University 3. New York University 4. Vanderbilt University 5. Harvard University 6. University of Chicago 7. University of Virginia 8. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 9. Boston College 10. Boston University Business Schools 1. Harvard University 2. Stanford University 3. Northwestern University 4. Georgetown University 5. University of Pennsylvania 6. University of Virginia 7. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 8. Duke University 9. University of California-Berkeley 10. Carnegie Mellon University Source: The Princeton Review’s Best 172 Law Schools and Best 300 Business Schools 2011 Editions (Based on institutional data on graduates’ employment and average starting salaries, and student survey data on how much practical experience and career services support their law and b-schools offered.) More details on the rankings at The Princeton Review .

NEW YORK — Earning a degree online seems like a cheap, convenient way to expand professional skill sets. But do hiring managers take virtual educations seriously? The stigma associated with taking classes over the Internet can be a nagging concern for those about to invest serious time and money to advance their careers. Such fears may be fueled by recently released federal data that suggests graduates of for-profit schools aren’t finding as much success in the job market. These schools, which are known for their online career education programs, had lower repayment rates for student loans, according to data released last month. CONTROVERSY: For-profit colleges under fire over value, accreditation DISGRUNTLED: More lawsuits target for-profit colleges The Department of Education plans to enforce new regulations starting in July 2012 that will restrict federal aid for career education programs, of less than two years, with too many graduates who can’t repay student loans or carry unmanageable debt loads. In the meantime, here are some points to remember about online degrees. • The Virtual Elephant in the Room Before you even start looking into online programs, there’s the matter of the stigma associated with them. As unfair as it may seem, those fears aren’t entirely without base. Only about half of respondents to a Society for Human Resource Management survey this summer said online degrees are just as credible as traditional degrees. The human resource professionals also said online credentials were less acceptable for higher-level positions; just 15% said online degrees were acceptable for an executive position. That said, keep in mind that this is a highly subjective area and that your schooling is just one factor that employers look at. The field of work you’re entering and a company’s culture will also influence how online degrees are regarded, notes Lynn Berger, a career counselor in New York City. “It may be that the person interviewing you got their degree online too,” Berger said. The matter may not be as big a concern if your online degree is from a traditional college. The same is true if you earned your degree from a school that isn’t widely known as a provider of online education. That’s not to say you should hide that you earned your degree online, but you don’t have to make it the dominant description of your education. • The Cost is Anything But Virtual A common assumption is that online schooling will be cheap. That assumption is wrong. At the University of Phoenix, one of the most well-known for-profit schools, each credit for a master’s in business administration costs $685. So earning the 36 credits required for the degree would cost a total of $24,660, not including application and other fees. But keep in mind that for-profit schools don’t have a monopoly on Internet courses. The majority of community colleges and four-year public schools now offer at least some online courses as well, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. “Many for-profit schools try to create the impression that they’re the only schools offering courses online or at convenient times,” said Pauline Abernathy of The Project on Student Debt. And the average tuition and fees at community colleges last year was $2,500. Traditional colleges typically charge the same amount whether students attend classes online or in person. With loan repayment rates at for-profit schools a hot topic right now, it should be noted that the majority of students at community colleges do not have student loans upon graduation. Of those that do, the average debt is $10,000. By comparison, nearly all graduates of for-profit schools have student loans and the average debt is $17,000, according to The Project on Student Debt. • Picking a For-Profit Program A few points to keep in mind if you’re considering a for-profit school. To start, check that the school is accredited at www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation . You can also check the site of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation at www.chea.org . Even if a school is accredited, be wary of aggressive sales tactics or reluctance to disclose information about pricing. Recent undercover tests by the Government Accountability Office found some for-profit schools used deceptive recruiting tactics and encouraged applicants to falsify financial aid forms. For-profit schools also tend to do a lot of handholding through the application process to make it easy for students to enroll. Don’t let this prevent you from shopping around for other options, rather than signing up for the first school you see advertised on TV. To gauge how well graduates of a particular for-profit school are doing, check the Education Department’s list of student repayment rates . Click on the link for “Cumulative Four-Year Repayment Rate by Institution.” Keep in mind that rates may differ for particular programs within the school. Finally, talk to mentors or professionals you know in the field to get their thoughts on your plans to pursue an online degree. They may have some recommendations on a well-respected program or one that others have had a good experience with.

ATLANTA (AP) — The U.S. Education Department said Tuesday that nine states and the District of Columbia will get money to reform schools in the second round of the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” grant competition. Florida, Georgia , Hawaii , Massachusetts , Maryland , New York , North Carolina , Ohio , Rhode Island and Washington, D.C ., will receive grants, department spokesman Justin Hamilton said. The amounts for each state were expected to be announced later. The aim of the historic program is to reward ambitious changes to improve schools and close the achievement gap. The competition instigated a wave of reforms across the country, as states passed new teacher accountability policies and lifted caps on charter schools to boost their chances of winning. Tennessee and Delaware were named winners in the first round of the competition in March, sharing $600 million. The applicants named winners Tuesday will share a remaining $3.4 billion. Another $350 million is coming in a separate competition for states creating new academic assessments. The historic program, part of President Obama’s economic stimulus plan, rewards states for embarking on ambitious reforms to improve struggling schools, close the achievement gap and boost graduation rates. “New York’s schools have made strong strides toward excellence and this grant will accelerate that progress,” said U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer , D-N.Y., who met with Education Secretary Arne Duncan on New York’s proposal. “This is great news for parents, teachers, and taxpayers across the state.” Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia applied for the second round of the competition. The Education Department named 19 applicants finalists in July. More than a dozen states vying for the money changed laws to foster the growth of charter schools, and at least 17 reformed teacher evaluation systems to include student achievement. Dozens also adopted Common Core State Standards, the uniform math and reading benchmarks developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association. “The change unleashed by conditioning federal funding on bold and forward-looking state education policies is indisputable,” the Democrats for Education Reform said in a statement. “Under the president’s leadership, local civil rights, child advocacy, business and education reform groups, in collaboration with those state and local teacher unions ready for change, sprung into action to achieve things that they had been waiting and wanting to do for years.” In a speech announcing the finalists last month, Duncan called the change a “quiet revolution.” Between both rounds of the competition, a total of 46 states and the District of Columbia applied. While the program has been praised for instigating swift reforms, the competition for many states was an uphill battle, with teacher unions hesitant to sign on to reforms directly tying teacher evaluations to student performance on standardized tests, and education leaders concerned winning meant giving up too much local control. A number of states that did not win the competition said they still planned to proceed with the reforms they had proposed, though they acknowledged change would take place at a slower pace. Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Civil rights leaders are criticizing Obama administration education reforms aimed at turning around low performing schools and closing the achievement gap for minority students. Eight civil rights organizations, including the NAACP , contend in a document released Monday the Education Department is promoting ineffective approaches for failing schools. They also claim the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” grant competition — a program with a goal of spurring innovative reform in states — leaves out many minority students. “We want to be supportive, but more important than supporting an administration is supporting our children across the country and ensuring that they have an opportunity to learn,” said John Jackson, president of the Schott Foundation for Education, one of the groups that developed the document. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and a White House adviser met with the groups Monday, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson , the Rev. Al Sharpton and the presidents of the National Urban League and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The groups distributed the document to members of Congress last week. Duncan has called education “the civil rights issue of our generation,” and many of the reforms the administration has pushed aim to improve educational opportunities for the most vulnerable students. “The administration is dedicated to equity in education and we’ve been working very closely with the civil rights community to develop the most effective policies to close the achievement gap, turn around low performing schools and put a good teacher in every classroom,” Education Department spokesman Justin Hamilton said. The Obama administration’s education reforms have drawn criticism from education advocates, including prominent teachers’ unions like the American Federation of Teachers , which gives money to many of the groups that signed the civil rights document. AFT President Randi Weingarten said she supports the proposal but that her organization had nothing to do with writing it. “I think the civil rights movement has done something really important here,” Weingarten said. “They are setting a very different prescription for how to ensure quality education for all.” The proposal calls into question many of the Education Department’s initiatives, including the $4.35 billion Race to the Top competition and the $3.5 billion to turn around low performing schools. Citing federal data, the groups say just 3% of the nation’s black students and less than 1% of Latino students are impacted by the first round of the Race to the Top competition, which awarded about $600 million for Tennessee and Delaware to undertake innovative reforms. Finalists for the second round of grants are to be announced Tuesday. “No state should have to compete to protect the civil rights of their children in their states,” John Jackson said. The document also proposes creating standards for equal access to early childhood education, effective teachers, college preparatory curriculum and quality resources. And it takes a critical viewpoint of the administration’s approach to turn around failing schools, including closing them or replacing much of the staff. “Low-performing schools will not improve unless we also change the resources, conditions and approaches to teaching and learning within the schools or their replacements,” the assessment states. But the plan has one glaring omission: no Hispanic groups signed on to support it. Raul Gonzalez from the National Council of La Raza said his organization decided not to endorse the document because there were concerns with how the groups see charter schools. The civil rights groups want charter schools to focus more on attracting diversity than the needs of the children in their community, Gonzalez said. “To suggest that a charter school started by community members who want to help kids in their community cannot serve 100% Hispanic kids in a community that’s 100% Hispanic — that they should be penalized for that or they shouldn’t be allowed to open up — that doesn’t make sense,” he said. But he applauded the civil rights groups for pushing for more financial support for programs that would help increase parental involvement in schools. Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Civil rights leaders are criticizing Obama administration education reforms aimed at turning around low performing schools and closing the achievement gap for minority students. Eight civil rights organizations, including the NAACP , contend in a document released Monday the Education Department is promoting ineffective approaches for failing schools. They also claim the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” grant competition — a program with a goal of spurring innovative reform in states — leaves out many minority students. “We want to be supportive, but more important than supporting an administration is supporting our children across the country and ensuring that they have an opportunity to learn,” said John Jackson, president of the Schott Foundation for Education, one of the groups that developed the document. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and a White House adviser met with the groups Monday, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson , the Rev. Al Sharpton and the presidents of the National Urban League and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The groups distributed the document to members of Congress last week. Duncan has called education “the civil rights issue of our generation,” and many of the reforms the administration has pushed aim to improve educational opportunities for the most vulnerable students. “The administration is dedicated to equity in education and we’ve been working very closely with the civil rights community to develop the most effective policies to close the achievement gap, turn around low performing schools and put a good teacher in every classroom,” Education Department spokesman Justin Hamilton said. The Obama administration’s education reforms have drawn criticism from education advocates, including prominent teachers’ unions like the American Federation of Teachers , which gives money to many of the groups that signed the civil rights document. AFT President Randi Weingarten said she supports the proposal but that her organization had nothing to do with writing it. “I think the civil rights movement has done something really important here,” Weingarten said. “They are setting a very different prescription for how to ensure quality education for all.” The proposal calls into question many of the Education Department’s initiatives, including the $4.35 billion Race to the Top competition and the $3.5 billion to turn around low performing schools. Citing federal data, the groups say just 3% of the nation’s black students and less than 1% of Latino students are impacted by the first round of the Race to the Top competition, which awarded about $600 million for Tennessee and Delaware to undertake innovative reforms. Finalists for the second round of grants are to be announced Tuesday. “No state should have to compete to protect the civil rights of their children in their states,” John Jackson said. The document also proposes creating standards for equal access to early childhood education, effective teachers, college preparatory curriculum and quality resources. And it takes a critical viewpoint of the administration’s approach to turn around failing schools, including closing them or replacing much of the staff. “Low-performing schools will not improve unless we also change the resources, conditions and approaches to teaching and learning within the schools or their replacements,” the assessment states. But the plan has one glaring omission: no Hispanic groups signed on to support it. Raul Gonzalez from the National Council of La Raza said his organization decided not to endorse the document because there were concerns with how the groups see charter schools. The civil rights groups want charter schools to focus more on attracting diversity than the needs of the children in their community, Gonzalez said. “To suggest that a charter school started by community members who want to help kids in their community cannot serve 100% Hispanic kids in a community that’s 100% Hispanic — that they should be penalized for that or they shouldn’t be allowed to open up — that doesn’t make sense,” he said. But he applauded the civil rights groups for pushing for more financial support for programs that would help increase parental involvement in schools. Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The Princeton Review , a leading test-prep company, has agreed to stop using claims about average score gains in its marketing materials. While company officials say that they believe the claims were accurate, and that they were preparing to move away from such claims without outside prodding, the decision came after an investigation by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which found the decision to stop making such claims to “be necessary and appropriate.” (The organization acts as an arbitrator among companies that agree to have complaints probed.) The inquiry was based on a complaint from Kaplan Inc., a major competitor in the test-prep industry. Kaplan asserted that Princeton Review had no basis to talk about score gains because the start point for measuring gains was generally determined by diagnostic tests, while the end point was a live test. Critics have said that they believe test-prep companies’ initial tests yield low results, encouraging people to sign up for courses and to credit the companies for large gains later. Whatever the accuracy of the claims, they have been quite visible. Examples cited in the investigation of the Princeton Review include: “In fact, our students improve their GMAT scores by an average of 90 points” or “Our students improve their GRE scores an average of 206 points” or “Our SAT Ultimate Classroom students average a score improvement of 255 points.” Scott Kirkpatrick, president of Princeton Review’s Test Prep Division, said that Kaplan’s complaint may have helped contribute to a sense that “the timing was right” to stop making score gain claims. But he said that the shift also reflects internal thinking about “who we want to be as a company.” He said that the company wanted to be “a true education company. Instead of talking about beating specific tests, we are about preparing all students for their next step on their own terms.” He said that every student “learns in a different way” and that learning “is not all about score improvement.” He said some students need and want large gains, and others need and want small gains. While test-prep companies should assure prospective students and their families about the results of their services, they should talk broadly about education, Kirkpatrick said. The company’s original focus was on “serving the upper echelon of students,” Kirkpatrick said, while today, the company wants to reach everyone. And it may also be harder for Princeton Review to focus on helping people “beat” the tests when the company is (like Kaplan before it) now in the business of providing course offerings and degrees, not just test-prep services and college guides. Kaplan praised the findings by the advertising group and the decision by Princeton Review. While Kaplan has not made comparable claims, it too has adjusted marketing in recent years by ending the use of testimonials in which test takers talk about their large gains after using Kaplan services. “We are moving away from even these individual testimonials in an effort to further move the discussion away from specific scores and in the direction of quality of programs and the student experience,” a spokeswoman said. Many admissions officers and testing critics have worried for years that the test preparation industry favors wealthier students, and also that test-prep companies may exaggerate their impact, leaving many applicants feeling that they have no choice but to sign up. Robert Schaeffer, public education director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, said the evidence has long suggested that test-prep companies overstate the impact of their services. He said that the announcement from Princeton Review is positive, but that “everyone else in the coaching business remains free to fabricate score gain claims and promote them to the hilt.” Last year, the National Association for College Admission Counseling released an analysis on the impact of test-preparation services that backed the claims of companies that they do produce gains on the SAT. But the research suggested that the gains are relatively small — gains that theoretically shouldn’t matter much in admissions decisions. But NACAC also found evidence that at plenty of colleges, these kinds of gains could make a difference. SAT: 30-point bump can pay off in admissions ON THE WEB: More testing, less logic INSIDE HIGHER ED ARCHIVE: An LSAT without racial gaps? David Hawkins, director of public policy and research at NACAC, called the agreement by Princeton Review to stop the use of score gains in marketing “an important” action and “a step in the right direction.” He said that NACAC commissions that have studied standardized testing and test prep have heard from people who believed that there are “false diagnostic tests that led to inflated test score improvements” but that NACAC was never able to document the issue. He said that the inquiry by the advertising group “offers further evidence that students need better information, at a minimum, to protect against misrepresentation with regard to test preparation.” While Princeton Review and Kaplan may not be making such claims, others are. Many of the boutique companies that have proliferated in the test-prep industry in recent years have websites full of testimonials about large gains in scores and promises of minimum gains. The testimonial page of Knewton, for example, leads off with Alex R. saying “Thanks for the 240 point increase.” And the comparison it offers on the GMAT test-prep course plays up a money-back guarantee for anyone who doesn’t see a 50-point jump in scores. Josh Anish, a senior editor at Knewton, said that the company measures gains in several ways. If a student has taken a test prior to enrolling in one of Knewton’s programs, that test is the base. If not, the company does have diagnostic tests. He said that because the company hires many people who used to work for the testing companies such as the Educational Testing Service , Knewton is confident of the accuracy of its diagnostic tests. Anish said that there is nothing wrong with boasting about score gains. He said that’s what customers want. “We are proud of our courses,” he said, and many of the clients are “a type-A audience and they want to know about return on investment.” READERS: What standardized tests have you taken and what did you do or use to prepare?

WASHINGTON — College leaders just about uniformly endorse the idea of community service by students. And college leaders just about uniformly endorse the idea of tax breaks to help pay for college. But combine those two concepts? Higher education isn’t excited about that idea. During his campaign for president, Barack Obama did like it, and proposed that some service requirements accompany new tax breaks. But last year’s stimulus legislation, which created some additional tax breaks, didn’t require service. Instead it required the U.S. Departments of Education and Treasury to conduct a study of the idea. While there have not been signs that the Obama administration is actively pursuing legislation, the two Cabinet departments have formally requested that anyone concerned about the issue respond to a series of questions: • “Should students be required to fulfill a community service requirement for receipt of an education credit?” • “If there were a community service requirement, should the institutions providing post-secondary education and training (hereafter, colleges) be required to administer it?” • If colleges had to oversee such requirements, how would they “ensure that there are meaningful community service opportunities available for all students?” • And if colleges had to oversee the requirements, how would they “ensure that eligible students are identified and able to claim the credit while students who failed to fulfill the community service requirement are not able to claim the credit?” In a letter of response , Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education and writing on behalf of 20 other higher education groups, praised community service, but criticized the concept of requiring it to qualify for tax credits. Broad took care to stress higher education’s commitment to service. She noted federal estimates that 6.7 million students volunteered in 2008, up from 4.2 million in 2000. And she said that the “growth in volunteering and service-learning on college campuses is no accident. It reflects a deliberate and sustained effort by higher education because we believe in its merits for students, our institutions and the world in which we live.” But she then outlined both philosophical and practical reasons to avoid any linkage. She noted, for example, that “contrary to popular images of undergraduates, part-time, older and lower-income students make up a large proportion of today’s college students,” and that many of these students have work or family obligations that make it difficult for them to participate in community service. “Working students, particularly those with families, have very little free time. Requiring community service to access federal student benefits would therefore force some to choose between work and volunteer activities,” Broad wrote. “Given that nearly one out of four colleges students who drop out do so due to financial reasons, it is unlikely that students will sacrifice work hours in exchange for community service hours.” ON THE WEB: Impact of part-time students INSIDE HIGHER ED ARCHIVES: Community service crackdown Further, she said that creating the requirement for the tax credits would effectively be creating a requirement for everyone but wealthy students, who wouldn’t need to worry about using the tax breaks. Broad also raised a series of practical issues, noting that many experts have said that education tax credits need to be simplified, not made more complicated, and that colleges lack the infrastructure to provide service opportunities for all students and to certify participation. She noted, for example, that many students volunteers through off-campus organizations that are not controlled or overseen by colleges and universities. Summing up her opposition to linking tax breaks for education with community service, she said: “We believe that combining these two individually worthy policy objectives would yield a result that is decidedly less than the sum of its parts.”