The Alliance for
School Choice and Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education recently
filed complaints against the school districts of Los Angeles and
Compton, California, for not complying with the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB).[1]
The complaints allege that these school districts have not fully
implemented the public school choice and supplemental educational
services provisions of NCLB for students stuck in failing schools.
The data confirm this charge. In the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD), only 315 out of the 257,636 students stuck in
failing schools participated in public school choice in the 2003-04
school year. Since the enactment of NCLB, LAUSD has received
hundreds of millions of dollars in Title I, Part A funding. As the
Alliance for School Choice argues, the Department of Education
should withhold future Title I funding from school districts until
they comply with NCLB.
The Provisions
NCLB promised to
make public schools more effective teaching institutions by holding
schools accountable for student academic performance. Schools would
face competition because students would have other options when
their schools were not adequately helping them achieve.
Specifically, failing schools now have to offer public school
choice and supplemental educational services to their students.
NCLB requires
school districts that receive federal Title I funding to offer
public school choice within the district to students at schools
that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two
consecutive years. In the third year of failing to make AYP, school
districts must still offer public school choice and must also offer
supplemental educational services. Congress added these provisions
to NCLB so that students stuck in failing schools would have the
chance to receive a better education. Under NCLB, up to 20 percent
of Title I, Part A funding can be used for public school choice and
supplemental educational services.
Implementation
Problems
Despite providing
over $46.6 billion in Title I, Part A grants to school districts
from fiscal years 2002 to 2005,[2]
the U.S. Department of Education has had little success in getting
school districts to comply with the choice and supplemental
education provisions of NCLB.
According to the
General Accountability Office (GAO), in the 2002-03 school year,
about 1 percent of all students eligible for public school choice
had transferred out of their failing schools.[3]
Similarly, the National Assessment of Title I: Interim
Report by the U.S. Department of Education found that less than
1 percent of the 3.9 million eligible students in the 2003-04
school year participated in public school choice.[4]
One explanation
for these low participation rates is the lack of timely parental
notification by school districts. In the 2004-05 school year, "Only
29 percent of affected districts notified parents about the school
choice option before the beginning of the 2004-05 school year.
Another 21 percent notified parents at the beginning of the school
year, which would have given parents very little time to make
important decisions about which school their child should
attend."[5]
Further, "The remaining 50 percent of districts notified parents
after the school year had already started; in these districts,
notification occurred, on average, five weeks after the start of
the school year."[6]
The implementation
of supplemental educational services appears to have had only
slightly greater success. For 2003-04 school year, less than 17
percent of eligible students participated in after-school
tutoring.[7]
The Los Angeles
Unified School District
The Heritage
Foundation filed a California Public Information Act request
earlier this year with LAUSD for data on the number of children
taking advantage of public school choice and supplemental
educational services under NCLB. The numbers are revealing.
- Public School
Choice: For the 2002-03 school year, 104 of LAUSD's 678 schools
failed to make AYP for two consecutive years. These schools served
221,472 students, or 29.7 percent of LAUSD students.[8]
Only 218 of these students took advantage of public school
choice-just 0.10 percent of all who were eligible.
For the 2003-04 school year, public school choice participation
improved little. That year, 111 of 695 schools failed to make AYP
for two consecutive years. These 111 schools served 257,637
students, or 34.5 percent of LAUSD students.[9]
Only 315 students participated in public school choice-just 0.12
percent of those eligible.
- Supplemental
Educational Services: In the 2002-03 school year, just 3.9
percent of the 164,434 students eligible to receive after-school
tutoring actually participated. In the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school
years, tutoring participation increased to 7.1 percent and 7.4
percent, respectively.
LAUSD has failed
to implement NCLB's choice and supplemental education provisions
despite receiving hundreds of million of dollars in Title I
funding. According to the U.S. Department of Education, LAUSD
received almost $1.2 billion in Title I, Part A funding during
fiscal years 2003 to 2005.[10]
Up to 20 percent of this, or $239 million, could have been used for
public school choice and supplemental educational services.
The Department of
Education is well aware of this situation. A Freedom of Information
Act request by The Heritage Foundation revealed a 2003 letter from
then-Acting Deputy Secretary of Education Eugene W. Hickok to LAUSD
Superintendent of Schools Roy Romer that criticizes LAUSD's plans
to use little Title I, Part A funding for after school tutoring.[11]
According to the most recent data, LAUSD, to the detriment of
students trapped in its failing schools, is still implementing
NCLB's choice and tutoring provisions too slowly.
Conclusion
Parents in Los Angeles and elsewhere deserve the parental choice
options promised to them under federal law. If LAUSD fails to
comply with these provisions, federal funding under NLCB should be
withheld from the school district. Moreover, federal and state
policymakers should provide parents with real school choice options
through additional student-centered reforms. Students trapped in
persistently failing public schools deserve a real opportunity to
transfer to better schools.
David
B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., is a
Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The
Heritage Foundation.
[1]"Spellings
Test," Wall Street Journal editorial, March 24, 2006, p.
A10.
[2]
U.S. Department of Education, ESEA Title I Allocations for FY 2002
through 2005, at ,
,
,
and .
[3]
Marie S. Shaul, "No Child Left Behind Act; Education Needs to
Provide Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation
Studies for School Choice Provision," Report to the Secretary of
Education, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accountability Office,
December 2004), GAO-05-07.
[4]
Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, Joseph McCrary, and Collette
Roney, National Assessment of Title I Interim Report, Volume I;
Implementation of Title I, (Washington, D.C.: Institute of
Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education, February 2006),
p. 64
[5]
Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, Joseph McCrary, and Collette
Roney, National Assessment of Title I Interim Report, Volume I;
Implementation of Title I, (Washington, D.C.: Institute of
Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education, February 2006),
p. 67.
[7]
Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, Joseph McCrary, and Collette
Roney, National Assessment of Title I Interim Report, Volume I;
Implementation of Title I, (Washington, D.C.: Institute of
Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education, February 2006),
p. 64
[8]
The student population estimates are from on the author's
calculations based on data from U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data
Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year
2002-2003.
[9]
The student population estimates are from on the author's
calculations based on data from U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data
Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year
2003-2004.
[10]
U.S. Department of Education, ESEA Title I Allocations for FY 2002
through 2005, at ,
,
,
and .
[11]
Letter from Acting Deputy Secretary of Education Eugene W. Hickok
to LAUSD Superintendent of Schools Roy Romer, October 31, 2003.
Available from the author upon request.