Difference between revisions of "ITT Tech"

From The Debt Collective
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Added Dick Durbin Open letter and campus closures)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
*Janice Nottenkamper is a former Financial Aid Administrator for ITT Tech in Little Rock, AR. [http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/06/02/68354.htm Ms. Nottenkamper is suing ITT ESI: CEO Kevin Modany, CFO Daniel Fitzpatrick] and other executives for deceitful and predatory practices against students, fraud and predatory practices pushing students into high-cost private loans that were likely to default. This case is in current litigation. She is a hero and whistleblower. --[[User:WikiNiki|WikiNiki]] ([[User talk:WikiNiki|talk]]) 14:19, 8 October 2015 (PDT)
 
*Janice Nottenkamper is a former Financial Aid Administrator for ITT Tech in Little Rock, AR. [http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/06/02/68354.htm Ms. Nottenkamper is suing ITT ESI: CEO Kevin Modany, CFO Daniel Fitzpatrick] and other executives for deceitful and predatory practices against students, fraud and predatory practices pushing students into high-cost private loans that were likely to default. This case is in current litigation. She is a hero and whistleblower. --[[User:WikiNiki|WikiNiki]] ([[User talk:WikiNiki|talk]]) 14:19, 8 October 2015 (PDT)
 
<br />
 
<br />
 +
=== Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to ITT ESI CEO Kevin Modany ===
 +
05.28.15
 +
Durbin To ITT Tech: Stop The Hypocrisy & Give Student Their "Day In Court"
 +
 +
'''Senator Says While Company Demands Legal Protections In The Media, It Denies Same Rights To Students In The Fine Print'''
 +
 +
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today called out the for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute for complaining that its “day in court [is] long overdue” while in its enrollment documents, the company prohibits students from filing suit in a court of law against the company either as an individual or as part of a class action – essentially denying students their own “day in court”.
 +
 +
 
 +
 +
“Students are forced into arbitration proceedings that deny them the precedents and protections of court proceedings.  With these enrollment terms, ITT Tech is shielding itself from liability and accountability,” wrote Durbin.  “Given your firm position that ITT Tech deserves its ‘day in court’, surely you believe your students deserve the same.  That is why today I am calling on you to immediately cease enforcement of any arbitration clauses, class-action bans, or other contractual roadblocks that prevent students from bringing claims against ITT Tech before a court of law and to remove any such provisions from future enrollment documents.”
 +
<br />
 +
 +
Kevin M. Modany
 +
 +
Chief Executive Officer
 +
 +
ITT Educational Services, Inc.
 +
 +
13000 North Meridian Street
 +
 +
Carmel, IN 46032
 +
 +
Dear Mr. Modany:
 +
 +
I am writing in response to your letter of May 29, which sought to respond to my May 28 letter to Mr. Feichtner.
 +
 +
Your letter states that “no one is more concerned about our students than we are.”  Unfortunately, your actions simply belie that claim.  My original letter asked you to cease enforcement of any mandatory arbitration clauses, class-action bans, and other contractual roadblocks that you use to prevent your students from bringing claims against ITT Tech before a court of law and to remove any such provisions from future enrollment documents.  In response, you called the request “unfair.”  What seems unfair to me is ITT Tech’s continued insistence on denying its students the day in court which ITT Tech claims it deserves for itself.
 +
 +
 +
 +
It is one thing when arbitration clauses make arbitration available as an option students can choose to resolve a dispute.  But ITT Tech’s arbitration clause does not give students a choice.  Rather, ITT Tech has buried in the fine print of its enrollment agreement a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clause that forces students to resolve all disputes that might arise in a secret, binding proceeding where the deck is stacked against them.  Juries are not allowed, students may not join together with any other students to raise common claims, and legal rules and precedents need not be followed.  When students seek redress for harm, they deserve the right to a fair hearing in an appropriate forum of their choice – and if your students want to choose the American court system, ITT Tech should stop standing in the way.     
 +
 +
 +
 +
Congress has already passed laws restricting mandatory arbitration clauses in many consumer and commercial transactions, but has not yet prohibited these clauses in student enrollment documents.  That is why I have introduced the Court Legal Access and Student Support Act with Representative Maxine Waters and other colleagues.  This bill would prohibit any institution of higher education that receives Title IV funds from employing ITT Tech’s current tactic of mandating arbitration or using other litigation roadblocks to avoid accountability to its students in court.  I will continue to work in Congress to enact this bill, but ITT Tech does not need to wait for a law preventing these tactics to do the right thing by its students and eliminate their use now.
 +
 +
 +
 +
You claim that “the use of arbitration clauses is a common practice throughout much of higher education.”  This claim does not appear to be supported by evidence.  I have queried higher education organizations such as the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Association of Community College Trustees, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and each reports that mandatory arbitration is rarely, if ever, used in enrollment documents by nonprofit institutions of higher education.  However, mandatory arbitration clauses and class action bans in enrollment documents are quite common in the for-profit college industry.  When it comes to avoiding accountability to students, the for-profit college industry and ITT Tech show uncommon leadership.
 +
 +
 +
 +
You also claim that “The success of our investment in our students is reflected in our student outcomes.”  But on the very day you wrote to me touting your graduate placement rates, ITT Tech filed its Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report – late, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations – which showed many of your institutions and programs fall short of graduate placement rates and other standards set by the Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), your accrediting agency.
 +
 +
 +
 +
When student achievement measures such as student retention rates, graduate placement rates, and licensure examination pass rates are “below ACICS standards, the ACICS will require the institution to add an improvement plan that applies to either a program and/or a campus (an “Improvement Plan”) within its Campus Effectiveness Plan (“CEP”) and/or its Institutional Effectiveness Plan.”  As such, according to your Annual Report:
 +
 +
 +
 +
*69 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring with respect to the locations’ Student Retention Rates
 +
*25 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring with respect to the locations’ Graduate Placement Rates
 +
*19 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Student Retention Rate to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or ACICS may withdraw those locations’ inclusion in the institution’s grant of accreditation
 +
*four ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Graduate Placement Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw those locations’ inclusion in the institution’s grant of accreditation
 +
*a total of 149 program offerings at 94 ITT Tech locations are subject to a program Improvement Plan with respect to the Student Retention Rates of those program offerings
 +
*a total of 85 program offerings at 62 ITT Tech locations are subject to a program Improvement Plan with respect to the Graduate Placement Rates of those program offerings
 +
*a total of eight program offerings at eight ITT Tech locations are subject to a program Improvement Plan with respect to the Licensure Examination Pass Rates of those program offerings
 +
*a total of 250 program offerings at 103 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Student Retention Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw its authorization of those program offerings
 +
*a total of 94 program offerings at 62 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Graduate Placement Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw its authorization of those program offerings
 +
*a total of 14 program offerings at 14 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Licensure Examination Pass Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw its authorization of those program offerings
 +
 +
 +
In addition, you made misleading comparisons in your letter between ITT Tech and community colleges.  Community colleges are a quality bargain for students compared to for-profit colleges like ITT Tech.  In 2012-13, average total tuition and fees at community college amounted to $2,792.  At ITT Tech it was $18,048.  You cited a three-year Cohort Default Rates of 19 percent for ITT Tech and 21 percent for community colleges.  Cohort Default Rates are easily manipulated and provide only a three-year snapshot of an institution’s borrowers.  A more meaningful measure multiplies an institution’s default rate by its borrowing rate to show the chance of any given student defaulting after they leave that institution.  Only one in five students at community colleges took out federal loans to pay for their education, compared to four in five students at ITT Tech.  According to The Institute of College Access and Success, that means students at ITT Tech are four times more likely to default as their counterparts at community colleges.
 +
 +
 +
 +
Finally, your letter invited me to visit an ITT Tech campus.  I must decline at this time.  I do not wish anyone to mistake my visit for an endorsement of ITT Tech’s well-documented poor performance and shameful policies related to court access for students or the company’s treatment of its students as outlined in the numerous lawsuits against you personally and the company. 
 +
 +
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
  
 
=== Faulty Accreditation ===
 
=== Faulty Accreditation ===
  
 
=== Campus Closures ===
 
=== Campus Closures ===
 +
*ITT Tech Ft. Lauderdale, FL  Closing September 7, 2015
 +
*ITT Tech Durham, NC Closing June 8 2015
 +
*ITT Tech Torrance, CA Closing June 8 2015
 +
*ITT Tech Bradenton, FL Closing March 20, 2015
 +
*ITT Tech Greenfield, WI Closing Decemmber 28, 2014
 +
*ITT Tech San Dimas, CA Closing December 7, 2014
 +
*ITT Tech Wyoming, MI Closing June 16, 2014
 +
  
 +
[http://www.acics.org/commission%20actions/content.aspx?id=1476 Reference: ACICS]
 +
--[[User:WikiNiki|WikiNiki]] ([[User talk:WikiNiki|talk]]) 11:49, 9 October 2015 (PDT)
 
== ITT Tech Warriors ==
 
== ITT Tech Warriors ==
 
[[File:ITTWarriors.png|frameless|center]]
 
[[File:ITTWarriors.png|frameless|center]]

Revision as of 10:49, 9 October 2015

ITT Tech Fact Sheet & Timeline


ITT Tech anti logo.jpg


"ITT marketed itself as improving consumers’ lives but it was really just improving its bottom line, We believe ITT used high-pressure tactics to push many consumers into expensive loans destined to default. Today’s action should serve as a warning to the for-profit college industry that we will be vigilant about protecting students against predatory lending tactics.” Reference Source - said CFPB Director Richard Cordray on Prepared Remarks of CFPB Director Richard Cordray at the ITT Enforcement Action Press Conference Febuary 26, 2014

  • Former Student Loans Ombudsman official, Rohit Chopra of the CFPB recently sent a letter to ITT Tech's investors warning them it is "not properly managed" and without reform, "will continue to harm both its students and its shareholders."


Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to ITT ESI CEO Kevin Modany

05.28.15 Durbin To ITT Tech: Stop The Hypocrisy & Give Student Their "Day In Court"

Senator Says While Company Demands Legal Protections In The Media, It Denies Same Rights To Students In The Fine Print

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today called out the for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute for complaining that its “day in court [is] long overdue” while in its enrollment documents, the company prohibits students from filing suit in a court of law against the company either as an individual or as part of a class action – essentially denying students their own “day in court”.


“Students are forced into arbitration proceedings that deny them the precedents and protections of court proceedings. With these enrollment terms, ITT Tech is shielding itself from liability and accountability,” wrote Durbin. “Given your firm position that ITT Tech deserves its ‘day in court’, surely you believe your students deserve the same. That is why today I am calling on you to immediately cease enforcement of any arbitration clauses, class-action bans, or other contractual roadblocks that prevent students from bringing claims against ITT Tech before a court of law and to remove any such provisions from future enrollment documents.”

Kevin M. Modany

Chief Executive Officer

ITT Educational Services, Inc.

13000 North Meridian Street

Carmel, IN 46032

Dear Mr. Modany:

I am writing in response to your letter of May 29, which sought to respond to my May 28 letter to Mr. Feichtner.

Your letter states that “no one is more concerned about our students than we are.” Unfortunately, your actions simply belie that claim. My original letter asked you to cease enforcement of any mandatory arbitration clauses, class-action bans, and other contractual roadblocks that you use to prevent your students from bringing claims against ITT Tech before a court of law and to remove any such provisions from future enrollment documents. In response, you called the request “unfair.” What seems unfair to me is ITT Tech’s continued insistence on denying its students the day in court which ITT Tech claims it deserves for itself.


It is one thing when arbitration clauses make arbitration available as an option students can choose to resolve a dispute. But ITT Tech’s arbitration clause does not give students a choice. Rather, ITT Tech has buried in the fine print of its enrollment agreement a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clause that forces students to resolve all disputes that might arise in a secret, binding proceeding where the deck is stacked against them. Juries are not allowed, students may not join together with any other students to raise common claims, and legal rules and precedents need not be followed. When students seek redress for harm, they deserve the right to a fair hearing in an appropriate forum of their choice – and if your students want to choose the American court system, ITT Tech should stop standing in the way.


Congress has already passed laws restricting mandatory arbitration clauses in many consumer and commercial transactions, but has not yet prohibited these clauses in student enrollment documents. That is why I have introduced the Court Legal Access and Student Support Act with Representative Maxine Waters and other colleagues. This bill would prohibit any institution of higher education that receives Title IV funds from employing ITT Tech’s current tactic of mandating arbitration or using other litigation roadblocks to avoid accountability to its students in court. I will continue to work in Congress to enact this bill, but ITT Tech does not need to wait for a law preventing these tactics to do the right thing by its students and eliminate their use now.


You claim that “the use of arbitration clauses is a common practice throughout much of higher education.” This claim does not appear to be supported by evidence. I have queried higher education organizations such as the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Association of Community College Trustees, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and each reports that mandatory arbitration is rarely, if ever, used in enrollment documents by nonprofit institutions of higher education. However, mandatory arbitration clauses and class action bans in enrollment documents are quite common in the for-profit college industry. When it comes to avoiding accountability to students, the for-profit college industry and ITT Tech show uncommon leadership.


You also claim that “The success of our investment in our students is reflected in our student outcomes.” But on the very day you wrote to me touting your graduate placement rates, ITT Tech filed its Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report – late, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations – which showed many of your institutions and programs fall short of graduate placement rates and other standards set by the Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), your accrediting agency.


When student achievement measures such as student retention rates, graduate placement rates, and licensure examination pass rates are “below ACICS standards, the ACICS will require the institution to add an improvement plan that applies to either a program and/or a campus (an “Improvement Plan”) within its Campus Effectiveness Plan (“CEP”) and/or its Institutional Effectiveness Plan.” As such, according to your Annual Report:


  • 69 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring with respect to the locations’ Student Retention Rates
  • 25 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring with respect to the locations’ Graduate Placement Rates
  • 19 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Student Retention Rate to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or ACICS may withdraw those locations’ inclusion in the institution’s grant of accreditation
  • four ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Graduate Placement Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw those locations’ inclusion in the institution’s grant of accreditation
  • a total of 149 program offerings at 94 ITT Tech locations are subject to a program Improvement Plan with respect to the Student Retention Rates of those program offerings
  • a total of 85 program offerings at 62 ITT Tech locations are subject to a program Improvement Plan with respect to the Graduate Placement Rates of those program offerings
  • a total of eight program offerings at eight ITT Tech locations are subject to a program Improvement Plan with respect to the Licensure Examination Pass Rates of those program offerings
  • a total of 250 program offerings at 103 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Student Retention Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw its authorization of those program offerings
  • a total of 94 program offerings at 62 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Graduate Placement Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw its authorization of those program offerings
  • a total of 14 program offerings at 14 ITT Tech locations are subject to a campus Improvement Plan and Student Achievement Monitoring and need to raise their Licensure Examination Pass Rates to at least 60% by November 1, 2015, or the ACICS may withdraw its authorization of those program offerings


In addition, you made misleading comparisons in your letter between ITT Tech and community colleges. Community colleges are a quality bargain for students compared to for-profit colleges like ITT Tech. In 2012-13, average total tuition and fees at community college amounted to $2,792. At ITT Tech it was $18,048. You cited a three-year Cohort Default Rates of 19 percent for ITT Tech and 21 percent for community colleges. Cohort Default Rates are easily manipulated and provide only a three-year snapshot of an institution’s borrowers. A more meaningful measure multiplies an institution’s default rate by its borrowing rate to show the chance of any given student defaulting after they leave that institution. Only one in five students at community colleges took out federal loans to pay for their education, compared to four in five students at ITT Tech. According to The Institute of College Access and Success, that means students at ITT Tech are four times more likely to default as their counterparts at community colleges.


Finally, your letter invited me to visit an ITT Tech campus. I must decline at this time. I do not wish anyone to mistake my visit for an endorsement of ITT Tech’s well-documented poor performance and shameful policies related to court access for students or the company’s treatment of its students as outlined in the numerous lawsuits against you personally and the company.

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Faulty Accreditation

Campus Closures

  • ITT Tech Ft. Lauderdale, FL Closing September 7, 2015
  • ITT Tech Durham, NC Closing June 8 2015
  • ITT Tech Torrance, CA Closing June 8 2015
  • ITT Tech Bradenton, FL Closing March 20, 2015
  • ITT Tech Greenfield, WI Closing Decemmber 28, 2014
  • ITT Tech San Dimas, CA Closing December 7, 2014
  • ITT Tech Wyoming, MI Closing June 16, 2014


Reference: ACICS --WikiNiki (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2015 (PDT)

ITT Tech Warriors

ITTWarriors.png


We are a growing group of defrauded student debtors organizing with Debt Collective. You are not a loan. You can meet with other defrauded borrowers and alumni from ITT Tech. Join ITT Tech Warriors on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @ITTWarriors.

The creator of the ITT Tech Warriors Facebook group is Christina Hammond. Christina was inspired by the student debt revolt lead by the Corinthian Collective student debt strikers well before the Corinthian College Chain declared bankruptcy. Many of the student's stories were so similar to what had happened to Christina at ITT Tech. So many victims from a different for-profit college experienced very similar deceit, poor education and predatory lending. Christina's goal is to raise awareness about the atrocities that ITT Tech commits against veterans, students, tax payers and the government. Christina wants to raise awareness about the student debt crisis and how it ruins lives. After seeing what was happening to the former students of the Corinthian College chain, the similarities of ITT Tech became very apparent.

As a result, Christina formed ITT Warriors group where true ITT alumni, whistleblowers, former staff could come together and raise awareness about for-profit college fraud and fight against the injustice that ITT Tech has perpetrated against us. Right now, ITT Warriors, EDMC Revolutionaries and Everest Avengers are all fighting for the Free Education, class-wide student debt discharge for defrauded borrowers, to raise awareness about the Student Debt Crisis. There are thousands of members all organizing together and growing. ITT Warriors stands in solidarity with the Corinthian 15 Student Debt Strikers.--WikiNiki (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2015 (PDT)