For example, superintendents used to be given some leeway in hiring and firing of relevant personnel. Now, if the "relevant school staff when schools fail to make annual yearly progress for four consecutive years" they must be fired (Peterson & Young 2004:1). "Similarly, a significant downturn in student achievement and K-12 education's need to seek larger percentages of ever shrinking state budgets, motivated twenty-three states to pass laws authorizing state or city takeovers of districts perceived to be in crisis," taking many traditional roles and responsibilities away from school superintendents (Peterson & Young 2004:1). NCLB federal funding guidelines have essentially, in some state legislator's eyes, forced their hands to take control over locally supervised districts.
Interventions to influence the interrelationships
To better improve district performance, superintendents can work with teachers to create enrichment programs and test-centered supplements to the curriculum at 'at risk' schools. There is limited federal funding available for school leadership enrichment programs, and promoting individuals to leadership positions who come from the district and understand the unique needs of the student population is recommended. For school districts that widely vary in their performance, superintendents can consult teachers and principles with winning strategies, and encourage these educators to share their techniques with teachers and principals from failing districts.
Keeping abreast of the law and development of special education is also essential as there are also even legal concerns pertaining to NCLB. In the foreseeable future it "is conceivable that schools will be held legally accountable for diagnosing pupils' needs,"...
Problems such as fulfilling the needs of ethnically diverse student populations, paying for services, and staffing schools must all be met as well as fulfilling the requirements set by standardized exams (Peterson & Young 2004:2). Furthermore, states are required to disaggregate assessment data by student groups, regardless of socioeconomic status (Peterson & Young 2004:3). Taking money away from school districts that struggle to meet basic standards seems counterproductive, moreover schools might actually be improving relative to where they were in the past but because of the inflexible standards set by NCLB, the schools may be punished rather than praised for a perceived setback.
Furthermore, superintendents are placed under a contradictory burden as well -- they must show more leadership at school but punitive measures traditionally at their disposal, like the hiring and firing of relevant personnel and funding are increasingly out of their control.
Works Cited
Peterson, George & Michelle Young. (2004, Jul). No Child Left Behind Act and its
Influence on Current and Future District Leaders. Journal of Law and Education. Retrieved 28 Aug 2007 at (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3994/is_200407/ai_n9442100)
