NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND:

Supplemental Services

By Dr. Mary Elizabeth Beach

 

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is in its second full year of implementation. Consequently, the “supplemental services” provision of NCLB has taken a front row seat. Supplemental services are available in reading and mathematics, and may be offered by tutors, teachers, or through computers, either one-to-one or in very small groups.

       How has this provision of NCLB affected the Springfield public? Are NCLB supplemental services meaningful to the families whose children are eligible for the services?

       The Springfield school district has sent more than 8,000 letters to families of low-income children attending schools identified as in need of improvement. Families were invited to make one of three choices. They could (1) request a change in school assignment or (2) request supplemental services. They could also (3) state satisfaction with their current school and make no request for supplemental services.

       Only 11% of the 8,431 letters sent out were returned (around 900). Fewer than 200 families asked to change schools or requested supplemental services. These numbers indicate that there is neither an outcry of requests for supplemental services, nor is there a mass flight to other schools. Some degree of satisfaction with the school, or at least a sense that the school in need of improvement is moving in the right direction, could account for the small number of requests. Or maybe the families in receipt of these 8,431 letters do not care about their children’s achievement, or do not think that supplemental services will help their children improve their academic performance. 

       The low number of responses and requests in Springfield is mirrored throughout the nation. In the first year of implementing NCLB, the percent of families exercising their NCLB options was even lower than it is now.  Some officials believed that school districts were essentially hiding these options from parents, and so the federal Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, hired three national non-profit organizations to spread the word about supplemental services.  Incidentally, there was no evidence of the communications work of any of these three non-profit organizations in Springfield. However, one for-profit  vendor of services in the Springfield community paid for radio ads with a message to families to check the supplemental services box on the letters sent home.

       It is worth noting that supplemental services are offered only to children in low-income families. Eligibility is limited to students who are entitled to receive federally subsidized free or reduced-price lunches. The school district has received some negative communication about this from families of both eligible and ineligible students. Higher-income families felt discriminated against because their low-performing children who needed academic help were denied, not because they did not have academic needs, but because the family’s income was too high. Families of eligible students felt that their children were labeled in double negative ways, once for being academically low performing and again for being low income. 

       It would be unfortunate if the funds intended to target low-income students are not taken advantage of more fully. 

       The Springfield Public Schools have set aside the required amount of the year’s Title I allocation for choice and supplemental services; however, due to the limited number of requests for services, the district will spend only 15% on service providers.

       Despite the rhetoric heard in the mainstream press, NCLB and supplemental services will be around for a number of years.  If there is evidence that these additional services are an effective intervention to help poor children reach academic success, then more families should exercise their options. So, Point of View readers—what do you think makes families not take advantage of this resource for so many of the city’s children? Maybe you have an idea to share that may help get the world out next round. Let’s get a community dialogue going. Public concern cannot hurt student achievement.  Please send us a letter or an email with your Point of View.n