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.