Public Schools Struggle to Meet 'No Child Left Behind' Transfer Requirements
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 8/26/2004
As debates continue over the merits of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the coming school year has focused attention on the law's requirement that students at failing schools be given the option of transferring to other schools within the same district.Under NCLB, students at schools labeled "in need of improvement" for two consecutive years must be given the option to transfer to another school. Although all schools are required to administer performance tests for students, only schools that receive federal funding can be labeled as failing and required to offer transfers. During the 2003-04 school year, more than 1.2 million students from thousands of schools were eligible to transfer, and both numbers are expected to be significantly higher this year.
Only a small proportion of students take advantage of the opportunity to transfer – about 6 percent last year – and even fewer have their applications approved. Typically the districts with the greatest number of failed schools and eligible students are the ones with the least capacity to absorb incoming transfer students at schools that have not been labeled as failing.
With the large number of transfer-eligible students and small number who take advantage of the opportunity, many educators feel that the transfer provisions are unworkable, unattractive to students, and ill-suited to address the very real needs of low-performing schools.
The problem is particularly acute in Florida, which implements its own statewide testing and school rating system alongside the national NCLB tests. The often conflicting ratings have increased the turmoil.
According to the Florida Department of Education, 68 percent of schools received an "A" or "B" based on Governor Jeb Bush's state tests, yet only 23 percent of Florida schools passed the national test of Adequate Yearly Progress. This year, 959 Florida schools must offer hundreds of thousands of students the option of transferring to another school within their district.
NCLB allows up to 20 percent of a district's federal Title I funds to be spent for transferring students and covering tutoring expenses (another required option for students at failing schools). Title I funds are intended to help students in high-poverty schools meet state academic standards.
In Duval County, Fla., where 440 students exercised their right to transfer last year, each took more than $5,000 in state and federal funding with them to their new schools, resulting in more than $2.3 million of redirected funds. One county middle school lost 196 students, taking a $1 million dollar hit from its Title I funding; the school's remaining students lost the services of eight teachers, an assistant principal, and several teaching assistants.
However, having funding follow students to their new schools is optional and districts that do not transfer funds leave receiving schools with less money per student, often resulting in classroom crowding, higher student to teacher ratios, and insufficient funds for the books and supplies needed for the new students. Even without transferring funding, the districts still have to spend additional money for transportation, which can leave the neediest schools with even less money for education programs.
"The problem with No Child Left Behind is that it can redirect federal money toward things that may not be effective," said Dave Gayler, superintendent of Charlotte, Fla. "We shouldn't be spending federal Title I money for transporting kids."
Teachers are particularly adamant in their disagreement with the rationale for school transfers.
"My feeling is, if you have a school that's struggling, put your effort into making the school better, not moving [the students] out," said Mary Cavaioli, a teacher at Norcrest Elementary School in Pompano Beach, Fla.
Broward County Superintendent Frank Till told the Washington Post that the transfers mandated by NCLB would worsen the quality of education in the state. Till explained that there is no place to send all of the students eligible for transfer.
"If you really tried to implement No Child Left Behind in Florida to the fullest extent of the law, it would cause total chaos in the state," he said.
More than 80 percent of Broward schools fell short of NCLB standards last year, making more than 60,000 students eligible to transfer.
Educators complain that NCLB makes no provisions for the actual implementation of the school choice mandate. Schools on the receiving end of transfer requests stand to get overcrowded quickly, but regulations make no accommodations for the costs of new teachers or construction, or the problem of many rural school districts that have no other schools to offer students.
According to U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education Eugene Hickok, "[o]ne of the logistical challenges Florida has is so many schools where students will be eligible [to transfer from]. There's going to be a crunch with regard to receiving schools—I'm not sure how that will be resolved."
National studies echo Hickok's sentiments. The National Education Association (NEA) performed a study of NCLB transfers in 10 urban districts across the country. The results show little use of the transfer option and a failure to provide workable and effective transfer policies to over-burdened and under-funded school districts.
According to the NEA study, in the nation's two largest school districts – Chicago and New York City – thousands of students were eligible for school transfer, but only 1.9 percent of eligible Chicago students and 2.3 percent of eligible New York students requested transfers. Despite the great under-use of the transfer program, none of the districts studied was able to approve all transfer requests.
Further, the study shows that the NCLB transfer provisions did not provide economically disadvantaged students with opportunities to transfer to schools with high academic achievement levels and low poverty rates. Instead, the study found that "schools that were chosen to accept transfers did not have substantially higher achievement levels or lower poverty rates, on average, than schools required to offer the No Child Left Behind transfer option." Further proof, argue educators, that Title I money is needed for the betterment of existing schools rather than for the transfer of students to schools that may have only marginally higher scores on federal tests than the failing schools.
Also troubling, federal policy requires districts to implement choice "by any means necessary," claiming that the mandate supersedes federal court desegregation rulings and can trump state laws prohibiting school overcrowding.
Many believe that as long as the federal government funds NCLB at only two-thirds of the $18 billion authorized by Congress, it will be doomed to failure.
"What do we do if 1,000 [transfer] kids show up at Miami Beach High?" laments Miami-Dade Superintendent Merrett Stierheim. More than 160,000 Miami-Dade students could be eligible for transfer next year.
"How do we handle teacher-pupil ratios when we don't have the classrooms?"
