No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has been picked and prodded since its enactment in late 2001. As Frederick Hess, of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) explains, NCLB offers three remedies when schools perform poorly, “One was to create new opportunities to serve children stuck in troubled schools, the second was to pressure low performing schools and districts to improve their performance, and the third was to provide guidance and technical support to schools which were deemed to need that kind of assistance to improve.”
Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), reports on a new in-home survey concerning 36 school districts encompassed by the CGCS. “The number of these schools that are in NCLB sanction…has grown steadily since 2002-2003.” In fact, about 30 percent of schools in these districts are in sanction status, which accounts for one-quarter of all sanctioned schools in the country. Some of these schools are not performing because of a single subgroup within the school, whether it’s African-Americans, Hispanics, or economically disadvantaged students, “Approximately 70 schools did not make AYP solely because of their African-American students, about 15 did not make it because of their Hispanic students, [and] 32 didn’t make it solely because of their poor students,” informs Casserly. However, most of the schools that are in sanction are composed of more than one subgroup.
When schools come under sanctions the students are afforded supplemental education services (SES), and the number of students receiving SES has grown substantially. Casserly explains that these SES can be provided by the district or can be provided privately. “The data indicates that approximately 95 percent of all students in these 36 districts now receive their supplemental education services from a private provider not from the district.” Casserly concludes that it’s not easy to evaluate supplemental education services, “The effect of SES on state test scores really depend on the provider you’re looking at.” That said, SES has complete bipartisan support in the halls of Congress.
Jeffrey Henig, professor at Columbia University Teacher’s College, contends, “For Republicans what was appealing about SES…it looks like vouchers…it’s given to individuals and not to schools, and it involves the private sector. For the New Democrats, it was a chance to demonstrate that Democrats are not anti-market. For the Old Democrats, the program…was not vouchers, and it did not represent a direct confrontation with the teacher’s union.” However, Democrats do wish that SES wasn’t so local, but was controlled by the Federal Government. At the same time, Republicans wish that SES wasn’t entirely bureaucratic.
In the mean time, with the large number of children, over 430,000, receiving SES it is potentially a “big-bucks industry.” If the number of children involved continues to rise, then there could be a high, active demand of tutors. “This will create a competitive environment in which various providers will up the ante in order to gain greater market share,” Henig continues, “For some supporters of this notion that includes the notion that the district will up the ante in terms of its performance as well.”
In terms of state responsibility, Paul Manna, professor at the College of William and Mary, claims, “States are supposed to develop a list of supplemental services providers, they are supposed to disseminate information about those providers so that local school districts [and parents] know who they are, and also the states are supposed to hold providers accountable for results.” Unfortunately, some states do not release appropriate information about approved providers—often refusing to provide phone numbers or post their results. In addition, some school districts refuse to disseminate any information about the providers.
Michael Petrilli, of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, states that districts refuse to release information because it’s non-beneficial, “In order for the public school choice and free tutoring provisions to work, local school districts must take aggressive actions to inform parents of their options, yet districts have little incentive to do so.” Petrilli calls this an implementation paradox because under NCLB SES can be provided by either the district or privately. The Federal Government attempted to compromise with districts to solve this paradox, but the Department of Education failed to force the districts to comply. Some private tutors have taken to launching outreach campaigns by using a mix of radio and television ads. There are also information centers that exist solely to provide parents with critical information, which should include information on providers. In the end, Petrilli believes that the paradox above makes this part of NCLB completely “un-implementable.”
Still, others say that 5 years after NCLB is too soon to accurately evaluate whether it’s working or failing. Individuals should not expect NCLB to work perfectly as is, and should appreciate the complexity and embrace fine-tuning the law. However, if NCLB was to be evaluated right now; one would have to observe how well problems are getting solved. Basically, NCLB comes with good news and bad news: There are statistics that detail better student achievement over the last 5 years, but it’s difficult to ascertain whether that is attributable to NCLB.
Matthew Hickman is an intern at Accuracy in Media.
