Assisting Schools “In Improvement” Without Enough Funding

Schools in need of improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act face stark difficulties because of insufficient funding, according to the most recent report from the Center on Education Policy. Furthermore, the report shows that NCLB’s mandates may be hindering its own objective of higher student achievement.

Since the implementation of NCLB, national attention has focused more on testing and identifying schools in need of improvement and less on the more critical questions of what programs states and school districts can adopt to help these schools improve. These questions are addressed in the CEP report on year five of NCLB implementation released in July 2007.

While NCLB identifies schools “in need of improvement” and mandates reforms, the CEP report explains, the law “is silent on what happens after restructuring,” which is the last phase of required reforms, if the mandated policies fail to bring about adequate progress. Schools in need of improvement face dismal prospects for true improvement because federal pressures for proficiency and insufficient funding appear to be causing schools to change their focus from enhancing learning to meeting federal proficiency standards. CEP recognizes that “multiple strategies are needed” to meet targets and the report’s recommendations depend on an increased and efficiently used source of funding.

Monitoring and Implementing Programs

According to the report, while NCLB charges states with monitoring and assisting districts with corrective action and restructuring, states often lack the funds and staff to fulfill these mandates. Due to low funds, schools frequently implement and maintain programs they believe to be effective, without the necessary follow-up. The report notes that between 19% and 39% of states reported they do not know how effective their strategies are. CEP also found that reform strategies perceived as being successful “somewhat” or “to a great extent” in its survey of districts were not being used by most districts. CEP suggests that the most effective strategies might also be the most costly to implement and that tight budgets may be forcing many schools to settle for sub-par programs.

Funding continues to be an inherent problem of NCLB’s goals and mandates. Although districts report that they view NCLB recommendations as helpful for schools, over one third of the districts reported that they “lacked the capacity to take some of the actions proposed.” In fact, as shown by the survey data, states often struggle to set aside the required 4% of Title I funds for schools in improvement. Many states also report adding state funds to address NCLB goals. Even districts with increased funding face difficulties meeting the new demands of the law. As one school director notes, although legislators might claim that “there’s plenty of funding,” they still need to realize that “the time and the paper and the data requirements have increased.”

Federal Mandates

As academic proficiency targets escalate each year, schools struggle to reach them. The report notes that this is causing schools to focus on proficiency goals and mandated reforms at the expense of individual student growth. Schools charge NCLB with insufficient research on some policies, as they are compelled to spend time and resources on programs that they do not consider helpful to their students. For example, a majority of districts consider supplemental educational services (SES) and public school choice – mandated by the law – burdensome and unhelpful. According to one school coordinator, “there’s nothing research-based that says tutoring kids for 16 hours is going to do much.” Yet, schools are still required to allocate a certain amount of their budgets to the tutoring services. As the report’s findings show, NCLB fails to take into account that “certain strategies are useful in some contexts but not others.”

Federal pressures to meet proficiency standards also call for curricular revisions and alternate teaching methods that emphasize reading and math. The CEP report shows that in general, districts with schools in improvement dedicate more time to math and English language arts than do districts without schools in improvement, especially in lower grade levels. Because the majority of districts reported to have maintained the average length of the school day, CEP concludes that increases in reading and math time in schools in improvement has “come at the expense of other subjects,” a finding confirmed by the most recent CEP study released in July. While some schools report they have integrated subjects, others have simply foregone fields of study like science and social studies because “there is just not time in the day.” NCLB’s focus on reading and math scores as well as policies that might not be applicable to all students may well hinder its own cause, the report suggests.

Torn Between NCLB and Student Improvement

The CEP report raises the disturbing question as to whether NCLB is detrimental to its own stated cause of improving academic achievement. Case study districts in the report suggest focusing more on “individual student growth rather than the percentage proficient” in order to create significant improvement in the country’s education system. However, overcoming this hurdle would require significant reform of NCLB. Unless Congress substantially changes the law, which is up for reauthorization this year, schools may continue to be torn between the very purpose of their institutions and the mandates of the federal government.

Prepared by Marcela Briceño, July 27, 2007