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.