Opportunities
For Public Input
By Dr. Mary Elizabeth Beach
In
the first of a series on President Bush’s education legislation signed into law
in January of 2001, this column previously explored school choice and its
impact on the
Two
new opportunities for families and the public to be involved in public
education are the “Accountability Report Card” and “Supplemental Services” for
eligible students. A primary goal of No Child Left Behind was to improve public
accountability and access for consumers of public education.
Schools
and districts are required to prepare an Accountability Report Card that lets
everyone in the community know how public schools are performing. The
Accountability Report Card informs interested parties about several items in
each public school. No letter grades are assigned, but there is a public
accounting for school performance. One can imagine, of course, that the public
will assign either grades or pass/fail status in some manner, and this may
affect the desirability of schools, as reflected by families selecting or
rejecting particular schools.
The
Accountability Report Card was released on April 7, 2003 at noon. Springfield and the majority of other
districts in Massachusetts conveyed to the public some information that the
federal education department thought relevant. While some would consider the
determination that a particular school is “in need of improvement” on the MCAS
to be old news, information about how qualified teachers are when they’re
standing in front of our classrooms was new news. For purposes of public
accountability, “highly qualified” teachers are not only licensed in their
field of instruction, but also majored in that field in college and teach that
subject 100% of the time.
Districts
have just two years and six months to bring all teachers to “highly qualified”
status. The requirement that all teachers meet the “highly qualified” criteria
is mandated across the country, and school districts and states have until
January of 2006 to meet this goal. Springfield enters the race to January 2006
with 91% of its teachers licensed and 82% considered “highly qualified.”
However,
several questions are pending: Where will we find all of the highly qualified
teachers that are needed? How will we help our district’s dedicated teachers
meet these criteria? What happens to a
district if they report that they have fallen short of this mark? How concerned is the public? In the weeks since all schools published
individual report cards and the mainstream press publicized the Springfield
school district’s portfolio, members of the public have asked relatively few
questions.
The
second opportunity for public involvement is in the new area known as
“Supplemental Services.” Supplemental services are before- or after-school
academic programs provided by vendors from a list approved by the state. Currently, the majority of vendors are
profit-making (or profit-seeking) entities, although faith-based and community
programs may also apply to be service providers.
If
a school continues not to make sufficient academic gains for a second cycle,
students in an under-per-
forming school are entitled to
additional (supplemental) instructional services while the school works at
improving. The two big questions the public has been asking about supplemental services are what students get
them and who pays for them.
Supplemental
services are for poor children who are attending Title I schools in the second
cycle of “needing improvement.” Only those children who are eligible for free
and reduced-price lunches are entitled to these services. Thus, the brightest, most capable and
well-performing child is entitled to services if the family is poor, assuming
resources are available. A student with
high test scores living in a
low-income household is eligible. Yet a middle-class student whose academic and
test performance is relatively poor is not eligible.
Some
would suggest that the opportunity for additional services for students in
poverty is entirely fair, as this is one way to balance the advantages of the
middle class. Others are concerned that families choosing not to take advantage
of the federally-subsidized breakfast and lunch programs are being denied
opportunities for extra help. This is certainly a dilemma for public policy.
The
availability of money to support extra services is more straightforward. This
money comes from the federal government by formula, and the school district is
required to set aside some of its federal Title I funds for this purpose. It is
the law.
What
we do not know about supplemental services is whether they will make a
significant difference in student performance. If students attend all the
sessions, there is a possibility that achievement will increase because the
children are spending more time on instruction.
However, it may be difficult to recognize whether supplemental
services—or other efforts the schools are making to increase student
performance—make the difference.