Thoughts

Being a Principal for over 20 years now, I worked when the federal role in public education was more as a partner, providing assistance and incentives through grants and research as a means of exploring new theories and approaches to education. Things were different back then, and the significant achievement gap in our nation at the turn of the century needed to be addressed. NCLB was the federal government’s response to what was and is considered an educational emergency, and the intention of this legislation is laudable.
However, the goal of education agencies having every student score at proficient or advanced levels by 2013-14 is unrealistic with the resources allotted, despite the law prohibiting “unfunded mandates”. I am in agreement with a statement in an article I recently came across by Wendy Lecker, titled The Promise and Challenges of the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’: “It is clear that many states and/or districts will need to commit significant additional resources to their schools if they are going to have a fighting chance of even achieving NCLB’s goals for their students” (click here to read article). The Title I money has been spread too thin and 1 of every 5 schools with poverty rates between 50 and 75% did not receive any ‘concentration’ funding as they were surrounded by schools with even higher poverty levels. The amounts many states are estimating on NCLB cost studies make clear that meeting the goals are simply unaffordable.
As one example, Reading, Pennsylvania has 6 out of 20 schools in ‘Need of Improvement’ status. The district performed a cost study and determined that $26 million was needed to meet NCLB requirements. It would receive $8 million in Title I funds. When it appealed to the State for additional funds, there was no response. This is happening over and again around the country. This, coupled with the fact that funds authorized for NCLB have been quite a bit higher than the actual appropriated funds makes the 2014 goal seem unattainable.
In the meantime, out students are taking more tests and learning ‘to the test’ while subjects outside of math and reading suffer. Programs now have to jump through hoops and cut through red tape to receive funding unlike they previously did when states and local authorities approved or regulated program funds. Even our best teachers feel their jobs are in danger if their student tests scores are not adequate and Principals are stuck at their desks behind piles of NCLB paperwork. The federal government has almost complete control over how funds are spent with the only decisions at the local level being where to put the money, not how to spend the money. What I find myself wondering is, how we can continue to work toward the commendable goal of narrowing the achievement gap without giving complete control to the federal government? Further, how can we cover the true costs of providing a strong education to every child in the country?

Accountability or Control?

In 2007, when our school went into ‘School in Need of Improvement’ status, my School Improvement Committee initiated an after-school mentoring program called Leap Forward as part of our improvement plan. Our research indicated we could receiving funding from general Title I, Part A funds, as well as up to five other streams: School Improvement Funds (SIF); Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) (Title IV); Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) (Title I, Part F); Supplemental Educational Services (SES); and Innovative Programs (Title V). In the end, we received financing, if even in very small amounts, from four of the five streams. We lost out on Innovative Programs as the $212,000 Title V funds our district received went largely to dropout prevention and literacy programs that the district identified as our greatest needs.
Each of these streams carries unique ‘accountability’ requirements. Penniless School District, on our school’s behalf, had to ‘demonstrate need and commitment to schoolwide improvement’ for SIF funds; on behalf of the program, we had to apply to the State for approval to be an SES program (said funds being reimbursed after services are rendered). The CRS and SDFSC funds were distributed automatically by the state or governor based on poverty level, enrollment and need.
In this sense, the ‘accountability’ term running rampant in NCLB policies sometimes seems a euphemism for ‘control’. The ‘Principles of Effectiveness’ tied to most funding streams often include steps our district normally would have taken in developing a program (clearly outlined goals, basing activities on effective prevention models, e.g.). Others, however, are steps we must take or do in a fashion that costs us time and resources. For example, our Leap Forward after-school mentoring program has to have a thorough systematic evaluation system that meets the approval of NCLB to determine that the program is meeting the needs of the population its intended to serve. Previous to funds for this type of program coming from NCLB, though we would have certainly assessed our program, the amount of paperwork and frequency with which we must do so in order to prove to the federal government we deserve funding is an entirely new hoop for us to jump through. Further, a strong link between the day classrooms and our afterschool programs is required for funding, which also costs time and money.
I recently re-read the U.S. Dept. of Education’s website introduction section to NCLB which states, “In exchange for the strong accountability, No Child Left Behind gives states and local education agencies more flexibility in the use of their federal education funding” (Link to DOE website page). It’s true that state and local agencies have the ability to maximize and diversify spending and decide what programs to put money into. What NCLB has taken, however, is local education agencies' ability to maximize and diversify the programs themselves: their intent, curriculum, and evaluation systems. NCLB outlines in great detail the intention of the funding streams and is specific as to how they should be spent. In this way, it feels as if individual schools and principals are still having their strings pulled by the puppet master that is the federal government.

NCLB affects on Penniless School District and Struggling Elementary School

Struggling Elementary School, and our District as a whole, has seen an increase on state test scores. This was quite exciting when we first looked at the numbers. As time went on however, I found myself humbled at not having considered the reasons they provided for these numbers. My teachers pointed out that this is in large part because our district now passes scores as proficient that would have been failing before; we dedicate more time teaching to the test and teaching test-taking techniques; and the extra time spent on reading and math, the two areas tested for NCLB, has come at the expense of spending far less time on other important subjects (social studies, history, arts, etc.)



Another significant impact – and one I view at least partially in a positive light – is that schools that have not met the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) have been forced to address their weaknesses. Two schools in our district that did not meet AYP for several years ended up restructuring their schools, as directed by NCLB. One overhauled their leadership, and another converted to a charter school. The charter school is suffering from low enrollment, but is doing well with the resources and financing they have been allotted by NCLB; the other has hit some financial roadblocks. Both schools are doing better now, exploring ways to improve and testing new ideas than they were in their failing, stagnant state previously. Though it is unfortunate it has had to take place under the pressure of sanctions, it is one positive affect of NCLB in our district.
Another area that greatly affects districts is the NCLB requirement that schools work with scientifically-based, standardized testing data. In Penniless School District, we had spent so many years constructing an assessment system that incorporated the tests, teacher training, and curriculum, that we didn’t simply toss this system to the side when NCLB came around. Instead, our district simply threw the NCLB system – quite different from our own – on top of ours so we now have a two-tiered, yet disjointed, testing system. This was costly, requiring us to hire additional staff to administer tests and compile results. I’ve heard comments at the district office that they feel they are turning into a testing center. It is a shame that so much of their attention has to be given to number-crunching and administering assessments that could instead be focused on school improvements and planning for our district’s future. Further, the number of tests students are subjected to has increased overall, which is naturally a stress to them and the teachers and takes away from normal class time activities.



One of the aspects of NCLB most difficult to meet in my district is the “supplemental education services” criteria whereby families can move their child from an underperforming school to another. Just yesterday I had a conversation with a lovely mother of one of our 4th graders. She’d just received the report on our school that has it categorized for the second year in a row as ‘underperforming’. She is understandably concerned about the education her son is receiving, and asked about the option to move him to another school. I had to share with her that at the moment, all the schools in our district are in similar shape and that there was unfortunately not a higher-performing school for them to opt for. This has been the case in our district for the past two years. Although the concept of ‘option to change’ in NCLB is wonderful and fair, the option simply doesn’t exist in our district, making it an empty promise to families. To make it a real option, our families would need to have the option to switch their children from one of our urban schools to a suburban school in our area is that is not in ‘school improvement’ status.



Our State is now required to take a far more active role in education funding, yet ultimately they have no control over it as they are to meet the criteria of the federally-devised and issued NCLB. There is some flexibility in how the State interprets NCLB and distributes funds, but districts now cannot affect state education agencies since policy is under the guise of the federal NCLB.
I have felt my own job change immensely since the inception of NCLB. As my school is underachieving, I have to do what I can and am paired against the market by the requirement that we offer school choice and supplemental education services.
My leadership style has been forced to change from one effective at motivating teachers to work in our underperforming school and help lead us in school reform, to having to place pressure on my teachers to get better results just so we can justify the use of federal funds. The constant threat of sanctions if improvement lacks does not make for collaborative leadership in a school. The result has been for some of my best teachers to transfer to better schools rather than put their professional reputation on the line.
Greater amounts of my time are consumed by paperwork and have pulled me out of the classrooms where I once spent significant time engaging with teachers and students. It is the Principal’s responsibility to complete all reports relative to every title program. Many schools with more funding than ours have even hired support staff just to do this paperwork, which is of course an additional cost to the district.

Penniless School District & Struggling Elementary School NCLB allocations

Last year, Penniless School District, with its population of 15,000 students and a poverty rate of 35.0% received Basic Grant funds (more than 10 individual or 2% rate students in poverty) and Concentration Grant funds (greater than 6,500 or 15% students in poverty). Further, each additional poor child above 30.2% received 3.25 times the Title I funding as each child in poverty up to 16%, as per the Targeted funds scale. Our district received $385 in Title I funds per student up to the 16% threshold. For the number of students between 16% and 35% (our poverty level), which is 2,850 students, they earned 3.25 that number, or $1,251 per student. In total, our district then earned $8.2 million in Basic and Targeted grants. Struggling School District, with population 800, received $437,000, or $546 per student. This amount does not include funds deducted for administration, and the required funds to be set aside for school improvement activities, transportation costs. The amount per student was $390 per student when these items were deducted. All additional needed per student funds came from Nowhere State, which contributed an additional $200 per student. This put us 32nd in the nation in terms of per child funding.

One School's Experiences with NCLB

My name is Toomhai Chagrin, Principal of Struggling Elementary School in Penniless School District No. 1, in Nowhere State, USA. I created this blog to share my own school’s story about how No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has affected our district and school. It is my hope that other Principals and educators read this blog and comment or share their own stories so that we can all begin a dialogue about how to rectify the inadequacies of NCLB.
Current Principals are well informed about NCLB works. For those who do not work directly with NCLB finances or are not in education, however, let me give you a general overview.



NCLB Crash-Course

NCLB is intended to close the gap between high and low achieving students and give all students equitable opportunity to receive a high-quality education. It attempts to do so through a standards-based reform ideology and program where students take rigorous tests to see if they have mastered the material; teachers, students and administrators are held accountable for results; and those schools not performing adequately are required to make improvements, or “corrective action” (sometimes even requiring the entire school to restructure) to ensure students are moving toward proficiency levels.
Although there are numerous NCLB funding streams, over half the funds come from the Title I, “Local Educational Agencies” program intended to improve education for disadvantaged students generally. Because Title I has the greatest impact, we will examine it closer. Title 1 funds are distributed according to four different formulas: Basic, Concentration, Targeted and Educational Finance Incentive grants.
The Basic Grant Formula is distributed to any school with a minimum of 10 students, and 2 percent of its student population, in poverty (as such, nearly all schools get some portion of this grant). The Concentration Grant Formula provides funding to schools with a minimum of 15%, or 6,500, students in poverty, whichever is less. For these funds, once the minimum threshold is met, the same amount of money per child is given regardless of the number of poor children they serve. Targeted Formulas, on the other hand, distribute more money per child as a district’s poverty rate increases. Lastly, the Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula awards states that allocate greater per capita income percentages to public education and those that distribute the funds equitably.