No Child Left Behind policy and implementation

NCLB

influences involved in the creation of the No Child Left Behind Act

The American public education system has been subject to increased political scrutiny in recent years. To respond to charges regarding the inadequacy of state standards to raise student performance and the prevalence of social promotion that Congress passed the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 or NCLB). This act directly links Title I funding for school districts based upon standardized student proficiency tests results. By 2005-06, states are must annually test students in grades 3-8 in reading, language arts and mathematics. States must test students in grades 10-12 in these same subject areas once. By 2007 the sciences will also be included in the battery of standardized assessment tests (Peterson & Young 2004:2).

This recent law is the result of the lobbying efforts of a number of federally and state supported initiatives, "like charter schools, vouchers, parental choice, high stakes testing, and decentralization," which have questioned the nature of public education and by extension the credibility of the professionals staffing and leading public schools (Peterson & Young 2004:1). The NCLB act focuses on concerns generated by these movements such as the need for school and district assessment and accountability. The NCLB act is also based in the American capitalist ethos of applying data-based standards to scholastic achievement, deploying resource flexibility so resources can be allocated to 'quality' districts and withheld from districts that fail to measure up to externally generated standards, and rewarding quality teachers and penalizing teachers whose students fail to show statistically measurable results on standardized exams (Peterson & Young 2004:2).

Iinterrelationships & impact on the superintendent and their changed role in the district

Once upon a time, school superintendents were seen more as managers than leaders. Leading students was considered the task of teachers in the classroom. However, because of the stress upon school performance as measured by testing on such a broad-sweeping basis, the focus has shifted politically to district leaders like superintendents. "Superintendents are held accountable for the performance of the schools and children in their district, and rewards and sanctions are in place to goad annual yearly progress" (Peterson & Young 2004:1). If no progress is made in a statistically measurable fashion the superintendent is held at fault, even if there may be individual, shining examples of excellent teachers, students, and programs within the district.

The NCLB also means that parents as well as teachers within the district look to superintendents to secure adequate school funding for a district by maintaining a quality educational standard that can be measured on standardized tests. Along with this increased pressure and calls for leadership comes an undermining of many traditional rules of the superintendent by the provisions of the act. For example, the consequences, if NCLA standards are not met can be financially dire in the short-term.

Superintendents may be frustrated, not simply with parental expectations for greater leadership on their part, but by the terms of the act that simultaneously put them under greater scrutiny yet give them less autonomy and discretion. 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," as "school accountability must be demonstrated by adequate yearly progress in student achievement regardless of disability, race or ethnicity, limited English proficiency, or economic status" (Peterson & Young 2004:2-3)