NCLB Fails Schools – and Communities

Gary West

May 2, 2004

 

Greenwood School District 50 is located in Greenwood, South Carolina.  The district’s website¹ includes a lot of information about the schools, their progress toward meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind² (NCLB), and their current “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) results.³

 

The website also indicates that Greenwood School District 50 began sending "school choice" letters to parents Friday, April 23, 2004.⁴  As you may know, this notification is a requirement of NCLB. 

 

Because Pinecrest Elementary School is the only elementary school in the district to meet AYP requirements for 2002-2003, all students in the other eight elementary schools must, under NCLB requirements, be offered the opportunity to transfer to Pinecrest for the 2004-2005 – regardless of available classroom space.⁵  The district cannot wait for the 2003-2004 results before offering that opportunity.

 

Besides Pinecrest’s 100%, Greenwood School District 50’s other elementary schools met the following AYP percentages⁶: 

 

·         Hodges=94%

·         Merrywood=91%

·         Springfield=91%

·         Oakland=86%

·         Lakeview=81%

·         East End=77%

·         Mathews=77%

·         Woodfields=77% 

 

All of these schools are defined as “failing” by NCLB.

 

Now, the district is in the midst of an unnecessary upheaval of student movement based on the percentages listed above – percentages that do not indicate failing schools.  Plans for portable classrooms are being made, teaching staff are concerned about assignments for the next school year, and transportation probably won’t know what hit them when all the transfers are settled.  Some schools will have empty classrooms while Pinecrest will have expensive new classrooms or expensive portable classrooms to handle the expected transfers.

 

Among those who were extraordinarily surprised by the impact of designating schools as "failing to meet AYP" was one of the local state representatives, Gene Pinson.  Mr. Pinson, among others, called to find out if the district had "lost its mind" by telling parents that students could be moved from eight elementary schools to the one elementary school that met AYP requirements.  Many of those who called were parents of students at Pinecrest, who wanted to know where all those students would be put and what impact this would have on the quality of programs at Pinecrest.

 

South Carolina State Senator David Thomas stated, via email, “I can't imagine a district sending a student to a school with no seats available.” He was referred to the NCLB choice guidelines⁷ and informed that every district in the state – in the country – is preparing to do exactly that.  The NCLB guidelines state clearly that “[A school district] may not use lack of capacity to deny students the option to transfer…”⁸ 

 

Mr. Pinson and others wanted to know why the district was labeling schools as failing.  They were assured that the district was doing no such thing.  The district considers these schools to be good schools that are working hard to meet the NCLB requirements.  The percentages above support that contention.  

 

The district's schools were labeled "failing" by NCLB. 

 

NCLB states that any school meeting 99% or less of the AYP requirements is a "failing" school.  Ninety-nine percent or less -- fails.

 

Mr. Pinson’s concern, at this time, is well-founded.  He and Senator Thomas are among those finding out what educators have known for more than a year.  Educators have been trying, for some time, to get state legislators and national representatives to take this seriously.  Utah's legislature was the first to act on the NCLB requirements.  Thirteen other states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington -- have petitioned the President for relief. 

 

Instead of relief, however, educators across the nation have heard U.S. Education Secretary Paige's comments that "educators are terrorists" and they are considered self-serving bureaucrats and bad citizens from the state level.  Neither of those characterizations is true.

 

NCLB’s school grading system is a serious problem that cannot be taken lightly – nor can everyone wait until the last minute to do something about it. 

 

Although that last minute is here.

 

In Greenwood, the property values for homes in the attendance areas for the eight “failing” schools will fall because of that NCLB designation.  That will happen in every community in the country for the next ten years – until the end of NCLB in 2014.

 

Passing schools in one year will have difficulty keeping their passing grade when their campuses become overcrowded with transferring students.  If a passing school scores less than 100% the next year, its students can then request transfers to another school.  And so on – until every school continues to fail the 100% test.  Property values will be grossly unstable in every community.

 

At the federal level, NCLB proponents say that all its requirements are funded and point out, as an example, that the law requires districts to set aside 20% of its Title 1 funds⁹ to cover the costs of transportation for students who want to transfer to another school.  Currently, those Title 1 funds are being used for the very programs needed to help students meet the NCLB instructional requirements.  Districts must eliminate the instructional programs to pay for the transportation.  When they eliminate the instructional programs, they no longer have the resources to create improved student achievement.

 

That is not funding NCLB.  That is taking money away from students and teachers to fund unnecessary operational costs created by the political definition of failing schools.

 

NCLB does not provide funding for the additional classrooms that will be required at Pinecrest Elementary School in Greenwood.  There are no provisions in the law to build new classrooms or buy portable classrooms.¹⁰  Those funds must come from state or local money.  Because the state is not fully funding all its own requirements for public schools, the only source of funds for new classrooms is local governments.

 

NCLB will cost local taxpayers a ton of money – in local taxes and fees – because it does not fund the things that are about to happen in your community’s schools.  Beginning as early as the summer of 2004, your district will be moving students from failing schools to passing schools – whether or not there are available classrooms.  Some of your community’s schools could be only half full while other schools could get new classrooms and/or portables – or those schools could be running two shifts, with classes from 6:00 am until noon and from noon until 6:00 pm, if additional classroom space absolutely cannot be arranged.

 

Common sense would indicate that other solutions would be available – and that those solutions can create improved student performance without creating political definitions of failing schools – and without creating the upheaval of moving students into schools that have no available seats. 

 

Instead of penalizing schools, moving children from one school to another, closing a good school building and adding classrooms onto other buildings…there are other things that can be done.  The following are the most obvious – and most sensible – alternatives to the excessively negative economic impact of NCLB on your community:

 

·      School accountability legislation should support schools and students where they are – which requires no building, no portables, no empty schools.  The funding that is required for unnecessary additional classrooms and transportation could be better spent on learning resources.  Schools and teachers need the resources to teach and to create learning by students.  Those resources include technology, reference and research materials, factual and current textbooks and other print materials, and more.  

·      School accountability legislation should insist that parents get involved with teachers, their schools, their communities – even with their own children, in many cases.  The education process cannot be managed by the schools alone.  Parents must be involved in building character in their children – schools cannot do that alone.  Parents must be involved in building work ethic in their children – schools cannot do that alone.  Parents must be involved in building an appreciation for education – schools cannot do that alone.  Parents must be involved in creating a fully functional citizen who can contribute positively to our society – schools cannot do that alone.  Parents must be involved in the health and nutrition of their children – schools cannot do that alone.  Parents must be involved in supporting the mastery of academic standards – schools cannot do that alone.  Parents must be involved in the education of all children, not just their own – and schools can help them do that.  Instead of moving the students from school to school, education accountability legislation should simply move the parents into the school.  There is not a school anywhere in the country that will not welcome the assistance that every parent can add to the education of all children.

·      School accountability legislation can add much to the involvement of parents and community in the success of any school by providing a meaningful way of identifying a school’s needs with regard to improving student achievement.  NCLB’s school grading scheme makes no sense and provides only worthless labels about schools.  With NCLB, it’s 100% or nothing.  Your child’s school is good if it is 100% successful; your child’s school fails if it is only 99% successful.  Does that tell you anything about your child’s school?  Absolutely not.  The school grading scheme should provide real information to parents, to educators, to local leaders, to the community, and to taxpayers.  That information should lead to real improvements – not just political labeling and not just to desertion of a community’s schools.  Everyone – whether or not you have a child in school – should let your elected representatives know immediately that something else must be done – and it must be done immediately and it must be done with the common good in mind.

·      And finally, everyone should get involved with the local schools.  It’s your property values that will go down if NCLB classifies your local schools as failing – whether or not you have children in schools. 

 

Everyone wants a better education for his or her child.  That can happen for everyone’s child only within a framework that serves every child.  NCLB’s approach is not realistic, not economical, and not practicable.  It deals only with the politics of education.

 

None of us is naïve enough to think that the politics of education is about anything other than spending tax money in private and parochial schools, segregationist academies (those do exist in many states), and the living rooms (home schools) of families who can afford to have one parent stay home to teach during the day.

 

None of us is naïve enough to believe we can afford to pay for the politics of education.¹¹  It’s hard enough just to pay for education itself.

 

Please contact your federal senators and representatives, your state senators and representatives, your local government representatives, and others to make sure they understand the impact of NCLB on your community.  Share a summary of your district’s AYP results¹² as a way of emphasizing the punitive nature of the impact NCLB will have on your community’s schools – and on your community as a whole.¹³

 

Endnotes and References

¹ http://www.gwd50.k12.sc.us

² http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=fb

³ http://www.gwd50.k12.sc.us/AYP.htm
⁴ http://www.gwd50.k12.sc.us/SchoolChoiceLetter2004.htm

⁵ http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf, Section E. 

⁶ http://www.gwd50.k12.sc.us/AYP2003Summary.htm

⁷ http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf, Section E-7.
⁸ http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf, Section E-7.
⁹ http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf, Section J-3.
¹⁰ The school-choice guidelines posted on the NCLB website state that “When capacity is an issue, school officials will need to employ creativity and ingenuity in creating capacity in schools to receive additional students.”  (The emphasis is the author’s.)  The guidelines then offer ten possible creative and ingenious options, ranging from “redrawing the district’s attendance zones” (that is, zone the existing students somewhere else to make room for those who choose to move from another school) to “modifying either the school calendar or the school day” (that is, let some students go to school from 6 to 12 and others from 12 to 6) to “initiating inter-district programs with neighboring [school districts]” (that is, send some of your students to another county).  None of the options for creativity or ingenuity involves federal funding to cover the school district’s costs for capacity.  The guidelines state clearly, however, that “[A school district] may not use lack of capacity to deny students the option to transfer…” 

¹¹ In South Carolina, there are an estimated 62,000 private and home school students.  Vouchers (under the name of “tuition tax credits”) were not passed by the state legislature after it was determined that the Governor’s plan would cost the state between $198 million and $245 million dollars per year – giving annual vouchers of $3200 to $4600 per student.

¹² A model like the sheet used by Greenwood School District 50 – http://www.gwd50.k12.sc.us/AYP2003Summary.htm – makes it easy to see the successes and the areas where improvement is needed.

¹³ You will find a related article at http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest/id16.html.

 

About the Author

Gary West has lived in South Carolina for more than 30 years.  He has worked in Greenwood School District 50 in Greenwood, South Carolina, for almost sixteen years.  Previously, he taught for two years at a private school in Andrews, South Carolina, and worked for thirteen years with Allendale County Schools in Allendale, South Carolina.  Mr. West is perplexed by the politics of education in South Carolina, where the number one education agenda for elected officials seems to be the total discrediting of public education.  During two years of teaching in a segregationist academy in Andrews, he heard nothing but disdain for the public schools from the parents of the students he taught.  In four years of teaching and nine years of administration in the public schools in Allendale County, he heard nothing but disdain for the public schools from the local leaders and the parents of students who sent their children to Allendale Academy (also, a segregationist academy).  Even the State Superintendent of Education between 1992 and 2000 showed her disdain for public education by releasing her list of the 200 worst schools in the state and by eliminating all technology funding for seven of her eight years in office.  Now the Governor and the Legislature talk of “starving” public education – with the obvious intent of moving state tax dollars into private schools.  Never, during his 30 years in South Carolina, has Mr. West seen such organized and concerted efforts to do away with the mainstay of America’s democracy – that is, public education.  Today’s elected officials seem to have little or no regard for public education.   Mr. West can be reached at garywwest@earthlink.net.   This article and others can be accessed online at http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest/.

 

Permission is granted to share this article with anyone, in printed or electronic format, as long as (1) there is no charge and (2) there is no change.  Just give it away free to everyone you know and don’t change anything.  The print media may publish this article in its entirety and, in doing so, may abbreviate the author’s bio to the first sentence plus the last two sentences.