REPOST: Stay focused

Paul Tough's book, "How Children Succeed," identifies and examines the many factors that led to the failure of the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a research project designed to close the achievement gap between privileged and poor students. More about this issue are discussed in this article published on www.economist.com.

THE young teenagers who graduated from a special South Bronx middle school in 1999 became nationally famous. All black and Hispanic and largely from low-income families, the students had been recruited four years earlier to participate in an experimental programme called KIPP (ie, the Knowledge Is Power Program), designed to close the achievement gap between privileged and poor students. The experience seemed to pay off: in a citywide test, these students earned the highest scores of any school in the Bronx, and the fifth-highest in all of New York City. Most won admission to top high schools, often with full scholarships. They all seemed destined for college, and for successful, precedent-bucking, demographic-defying lives.

But six years after their high-school graduation, only about a fifth of KIPP’s first class had completed a four-year college degree. Most ended up dropping out, reaffirming America’s growing class divide on college campuses. KIPP’s founders were distraught, particularly because a college degree has never been more valuable, enabling Americans to earn some 80% more than people with only a high-school diploma. So how had KIPP failed to prepare these students for college? What did they do wrong?

Paul Tough, a journalist and former editor at the New York Times Magazine, aims to answer these thorny questions in “How Children Succeed”, an ambitious and elegantly written new book, now out in Britain. The problem, he writes, is that academic success is believed to be a product of cognitive skills—the kind of intelligence that gets measured in IQ tests. This view has spawned a vibrant market for brain-building baby toys, and an education-reform movement that sweats over test scores. But new research from a spate of economists, psychologists, neuroscientists and educators has found that the skills that see a student through college and beyond have less to do with smarts than with more ordinary personality traits, like an ability to stay focused and control impulses. The KIPP students who graduated from college were not the academic stars but the workhorses, the ones who plugged away at problems and resolved to do better.

So non-cognitive skills like persistence and curiosity are highly predictive of future success. But where do these traits come from? And how can they be developed? In search of answers, Mr Tough first looks at the problem on a neurological level. Apparently medical reasons explain why children who grow up in abusive or dysfunctional environments generally find it harder to concentrate, sit still and rebound from disappointments. The part of the brain most affected by early stress is the prefrontal cortex, which is critical for regulating thoughts and mediating behaviour. When this region is damaged—a common condition for children living amid the pressures of poverty—it is tougher to suppress unproductive instincts.

The science seems daunting, but it also points the way forward. Studies show that early nurturing from parents or caregivers helps combat the biochemical effects of stress. And educators can push better habits and self control. The “prefrontal cortex is more responsive to intervention than other parts of the brain,” writes Mr Tough. It stays malleable well into early adulthood. Character can be taught.

But schools have experience creating classes that raise test scores. Figuring out the best way to help youths develop “grit”—a passionate dedication to a goal—is trickier. Psychological interventions require more sophistication than teaching maths, and one of the big problems facing underperforming schools in America is a shortage of good teachers. But Mr Tough highlights some promising efforts to take these lessons about non-cognitive skills on board. A fascinating chapter considers the work of a young chess instructor in Brooklyn who turns unmotivated low-income students into chess champions by teaching them new ways to solve problems and recover from failures. In Chicago a programme called OneGoal, launched in 2009, is preparing struggling high-school students for college by stressing the link between hard work and destiny. And KIPP schools are now experimenting with something called a character report card, designed to show students that such traits can improve with time.

Replicating such initiatives on a grand scale will be hard, not least because they all seem to be run by uniquely talented and dedicated teachers and reformers. But at a time when ever more American children are living in poverty, better schools remain the most powerful anti-poverty tool available. After decades of failed efforts to improve the lives of poor students, Mr Tough has written a fine and provocative book about the kind of work that seems to be making a difference.

Anthony Tricoli, CEO and president of The Global Center for the Advancement of Higher Education, has twice bagged the Georgia State Legislature Award, in addition to winning the International Leadership Award from the Chair Academy. This Facebook page provides more updates of his most recent activities.

Tricoli was Scapegoat for Georgia University System Inefficiencies

Posted: December 4, 2012 at 4:18 pm on The Collegian of Georgia Perimeter College
Updated: December 13, 2012 at 11:09 am

By David Schick

State Rep. Karla Drenner thinks that more blame for GPC’s budget deficit should be placed with the University System of Georgia than with former President Anthony Tricoli.

Drenner recently stated in a CrossRoadsNews article that she believed Tricoli wasn’t at fault and that he was just a scapegoat for the USG.

“How can a president with a long series of successes be abruptly dismissed before any investigation?” wrote Drenner in response to follow up questions the Collegian submitted via email.

In the response, Drenner analyzes and questions the USG’s Special Audit of GPC’s budget deficit.

“I also started to wonder about the USG involvement and learned that they meet annually with the college’s leadership teams to review the college’s budget actions of the precious year and discuss their future budget proposal,” wrote Drenner. “If they were meeting annually, how could the Chancellors office not know?”

Drenner stated that if they didn’t know, they should have known. Drenner stated that the changes to USG budget oversight procedures, which were adopted on June 5 according to an email by Chancellor Hank Huckaby, are an indication of the USG’s culpability.

“Clearly, the financial oversight processes and procedures which were in place at the System Office were inadequate,” wrote Drenner.

“While ultimately it is the college president’s responsibility to manage the organization, again I would offer with the adoption of these changes does it not communicate the recognition of the lack of appropriate processes and procedures by the University System that added to this problem?”

According to USG’s Special Audit, “email discussions among GPC’s financial staff starting in Jan 2012 that reference the declines in the auxiliary fund balances”were not shared outside GPC’s Office of Financial and Administrative Affairs until “several months afterwards.”

Drenner noted that the Tricoli was specifically excluded from these communications.

“I am particularly concerned that the USG’s special audit report failed to communicate that ‘system level’ leaders had been involved in these e-mail discussions which excluded the president,” wrote Drenner.

In her last point, Drenner makes reference to the special audit’s claim that all of GPC’s budget presentations were “incomplete and inaccurate.”

Drenner wrote:

Again, I ask myself, if the president was receiving ‘incomplete’ and ‘inaccurate’ budget presentations from the second person in authority at the college and the top financial administrator with 40 years of experience, the CBO, why was the president removed? Only too recently the Board at the University of Virginia removed the President of the UVA. The president after the investigation was restored to her leadership position. Consider the recent events at Emory when upper level administrators purposefully misled the public for years regarding its successes. An investigation was done, and when it concluded that the Emory’s president did not know, the president was retained, and the individuals responsible not.

Drenner concluded that she understood how difficult it could be to reverse the decision of removing Tricoli, but the evidence from the special audit “suggests thoughtful reconsideration.”

The Collegian emailed Chancellor Huckaby requesting a response to Drenner’s statements.

As of press time, there has been no response.

Representative Drenner’s Comments:

In the court of law the presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. It stands to reason that the prosecution or in this instance that the University System of Georgia has to collect and present compelling evidence to support the allegation of “fiscal mismanagement” that subsequently supported the termination of GPC’S President. Of course, I realize that Georgia is right to work State and the legal metaphor that I use is not applicable. But the larger question for me in this situation is how can someone be removed, not rehired, terminated or any of the above without first obtaining the facts??? Effective June 30th the GPC’s President’s contract was not renewed and the USG formal audit was not released until 11 weeks later on September 17th, 2012.

Below are my responses to your questions:

1) Why do you believe Anthony Tricoli wasn't at fault for the Georgia Perimeter College budget deficit?

Several statements made in the final audit report suggest the problem was not solely at the presidential level. Other departments suggested to be involved were the Human Resource and Budget Offices. “A significant inaccuracy regarding personal services was budgeting of fringe benefits. GPC understated the fringe benefits that corresponded with each employee on the payroll. This understatement has been estimated at $6.7 million. Understating fringe benefits allowed other budget areas to be overstated. When funds were spent against the overstated areas, deficit spending occurred.”(page 14)

Does this mean the college’s Office of Human Resources made mistakes in assigning employees to the appropriate departments? From what I understand, both the Human Resources Department reported to the same vice president as did the Budget Office. Thus, the problems regarding the budget are centralized in this one area under this one vice president (CBO).

Presidents in all organizations are ultimately responsible for the organizations in which they have been charged to run but, presidents must rely upon their staff to provide them with accurate information, so the best decisions can be made in a timely fashion. On this point, the special audit reported the following: “It is clear from our review that GPC’s CBO did not provide GPC’s President with timely and reliable financial information for the President’s use in managing the institution.”(page 3)

The special audit report indicates the following about the role the college’s budget manager played in the college’s budget problems: “Meanwhile, the former budget director stated that he knew of no one who was looking at the overall budget. It seems apparent that he should have had the responsibility for doing so since his job description included responsibility for budget planning, development and monitoring in accordance with institutional and system requirements. He indicated he had conversations with the former CBO and the former AVP to notify them they were overspending, but no actions were ever taken to curtail the spending. (We did not find documented evidence to support the existence of the conversations referenced by the former budget director.)”(page 19-20)

When the former budget manager was questioned by an attorney about his role in this situation, he responded by sending a signed Affidavit. This Affidavit was noted in the special audit review: “He [budget manager] also stated in an affidavit signed for former President Tricoli that he did not believe there were any budget deficits and that he never brought concerns about budget deficits to the attention of the former President.”(page 20).

Again, I began to wonder how the President did not know about this budget issue. The special audit answered my question in this way: “The former Budget Director’s job description states that he is responsible for “budget planning, development and monitoring in accordance with institutional and System requirements. As noted throughout this report, fundamental budget duties were not performed. Budget reporting was inaccurate, budgets were not correctly loaded into the financial system, numerous individuals could override the flawed budgets that were loaded in the system, and budget development essentially ignored actual financial experience. In short, essentially every primary duty of the Budget Director was left unfulfilled.”(page 5 ) This finding alone suggested to me a system flaw. I began to think about the annual budget reports and the creation of those reports what role did they play in the budget problem at GPC. The Special Audit stated, “We found three such presentations for FY 10, 11, and 12 and noted that presentations were not representative of GPC’s financial condition.” (page 19) So, from this information I now knew that the budget information received by the college president was inaccurate.

At this point, I also started to wonder about the USG involvement and learned that they meet annually with the college’s leadership teams to review the college’s budget actions of the previous year and discuss their future budget proposal.

So, if they were meeting annually, how could the Chancellors office not know?? Well, either they knew or they should have known? If they did know then how come from 2010-2012 the systems office did not discuss the looming financial concerns with GPC and make adjustments back in 2010? I could find no evidence in the final report that there was a discussion from the Interim President and the current GPC President? Why?

2) Do you have any evidence that the University System used Tricoli as a scapegoat?

The USG Chancellor shortly after the departure of the President of GPC, adopted changes to the processes and procedures within his office and other USG departments to strengthen budget oversight in the future, suggesting that perhaps GPC may not have experienced the financial crises which resulted. Clearly, the financial oversight processes and procedures which were in place at the System Office were inadequate. They were so insufficient that they prevented the USG from providing appropriate review and guidance of the budgets for the institutions in the System, including GPC. In a June 5, 2012 letter to the University System Presidents, Chancellor Huckaby said the following: “Effective oversight of fiscal operations is a shared responsibility among our presidents, our chief business officers, and the University System Office.” “In an effort to strengthen our fiscal operations, the System Office will be implementing enhanced review of each institution’s financials. Accordingly, I am implementing the following procedures. These procedures will be formalized shortly; however, please implement these at your respective institutions as follows:”

The communication follows with great detail about how each of these areas listed below will be carried out in the future: 1) Budget Hearings; 2) Quarterly Financial Reports; 3) External Audits; 4) Use of Reserves; and 5) Institution Visits.

While ultimately it is the college president’s responsibility to manage the organization, again I would offer with the adoption of these changes does it not communicate the recognition of the lack of appropriate processes and procedures by the University System that added to this problem?

3) If Tricoli wasn't at fault, do you know of any specific person(s) that was in a position to prevent the budget deficit?

The special audit acknowledges the following: “We also noted the existence of email discussions among staff within GPC’s Office of Financial and Administrative Affairs starting in January 2012 that reference declines in auxiliary fund balances and the use of auxiliary reserves for non-auxiliary expenditures over the past several fiscal years. There was no evidence that these emails were shared outside of the Office of Financial and Administrative Affairs until several months afterwards.” (page 1) While this information is disturbing, I am particularly concerned that the USG’s special audit report failed to communicate that “system level” leaders had been involved in these e-mail discussions which excluded the college president.

4) Do you have any other knowledge regarding Georgia Perimeter College's budget deficit or the removal of Tricoli? (Beyond what has already been published in the press or the special audit review)

During my tenure in the Georgia State Legislature thousands of my constituents have been and/or are currently connected to GPC, and there’s an overall dissatisfaction with what has happened at the college as a result of the Chancellor’s and BOR’s decisions. We all have the same question: how can a president with a long series of successes be abruptly dismissed before any investigation?

5) What do you think are the necessary steps to ensure this doesn't happen to another University System school?

Allow me to first share that I am saddened that so many college employees were harmed as a result of this situation. This problem appears to have occurred because of a lack of communication as well as a lack of a strong oversight guidelines at the University System level, as evidenced by new and more comprehensive System Budget Oversight Process.

As I conclude my responses, I want to share one last point made by those who conducted and prepared the special audit report: “GPC’s former fiscal leadership team relied on inaccurate, internally generated spreadsheets that did not correspond to the General Ledger. Specifically, it appears that members of GPC’s cabinet, to include the former President, and both the President’s Council and the Strategic Budget Committee, were provided incomplete and inaccurate budget presentations made by the CBO and the Budget Director at various group meetings.”(page 6)

Again, I ask myself, if the president was receiving “incomplete” and “inaccurate” budget presentations from the second person in authority at the college and the top financial administrator with 40 years of experience, the CBO, why was the president removed?

Only too recently the Board at the University of Virginia removed the President of the UVA. The president after the investigation was restored to her leadership position. Consider the recent events at Emory when upper level administrators purposefully misled the public for years regarding its successes. An investigation was done, and when it concluded that the Emory’s president did not know, the president was retained, and the individuals responsible not. I understand how difficult it can be for a decision to be reversed. As is evidenced by the internal findings of the USG’s Special Audit and the implementation of an extensive new budget review process by the USG suggests thoughtful reconsideration.