The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is a high-stakes accountability system aimed at increasing the performance of the educational establishments. The Act introduced the policy of determining the financing of schools based on the performance of their students, determined by mandatory testing in certain grades. The under-performing schools that failed to improve for two consecutive years face sanctions.
However, NCLB was extensively criticized for the lack of positive outcomes as a result of its implementation and for the creation of additional adverse effects that hampered the education process. Some researchers point out that the pressing need to keep up with standards creates a single-minded focus on avoiding sanctions and the fear of implementing unapproved techniques, which eventually leads to the lack of innovation (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). Besides, some data points at the fact that schools in areas with higher poverty rates tend to underperform because of the insufficient resource base, leading to a vicious circle (Meyers & Murphy, 2007).
For these reasons, the Every Student Succeeds Act was conceived to address most of the issues of the No Child Left Behind Act. Besides the alleged shift of political influences (the ESSA decreases federal involvement in the teaching process and gives more authority and control to the states), it allows the individualized approach to performance assessment. While the responsibility for the performance of schools remains in place, and the interventions for the underperforming entities must be implemented, both the standards for testing and the character of interventions are now decided by state authorities.
Besides, the states decide which factors can be used to disaggregate the scores and how the final scores are interpreted. Obviously, the shift towards the ESSA is not likely to happen instantly, as the curricula and the organization of annual testing must both be corrected. In addition, while the NCLB Act is generally recognized as controversial, at least some resistance will arise from the attempt to discard it, so they need to manage it will probably arise early in the process. Thus, a change model is required to effectively implement the process.
The planned changes thus include the rigorous analysis of the College- and Career-Ready Standards that determine the performance of schools, and its subsequent correction to more adequately represent the actual level of success and the creation of an organizational climate that will trigger the performance improvement both for teaching staff and for the students. For this reason, the preferred framework for change is the one suggested by Fullan.
The reason behind the choice is grounded in his model’s heavy reliance on leaders as the actors most responsible for the change (Fullan, 2001). It is worth noting that the Every Student Succeeds Act specifically mentions the leader as a major contributor to the educational process (Herman, Gates, Chavez-Herrerias, & Harris, 2016). Besides, the five core components of leadership defined by Fullan align well with the main directions of the planned change. In our case, a leader is any member of the school staff who is directly involved in managing the school activities of students and is responsible for the instructional leadership.
Thus, the teachers and school principals are central to our framework. In the case of teachers, the assumption is obvious, as is the field of competence: they directly interact with the students and can facilitate the necessary changes in the process, outline and explain new goals, and direct the efforts of students towards the desired standards. At the same time, some experts identify the role of principals in school leadership as second only to the teachers (Coelli & Green, 2012).
The research shows that the schools with effective principals tend to score better in testing, have a higher success rate, lower dropout rate, and significantly lower staff turnover, which consequently leads to improved teaching process (Grissom, 2011). As such, we should view principals and teachers as a leading team without restricting the role to a single person. The five core components are thus divided between them according to their fields of competence. The moral purpose can be attributed to both teachers and principals.
The teachers need to focus on the positive outcome of each student and narrow down the difference in performance between them. Likewise, the principals need to account for the performance of their school (effectively manage the process) and other schools in the district (reviewing the standards and suggesting the changes to others, which will improve the overall picture). This is naturally connected to relationship building – another core component. The schools of the state need to work together to produce the methods of interpreting and disaggregating the annual testing results.
Besides, the interaction between the federal and state authorities will likely yield better results when steps are made by the leaders to establish a meaningful dialog. Coherence making, which is usually vaguely defined as the ability to systematize the diverse elements and control them in unison, has a particular value for the implementation of ESSA. The elimination of the performance gap sometimes leads to a decrease in the mean level. The skilled utilization of the Race to the Top policy will ensure higher success rates for the leading students. The creation and sharing of knowledge will mostly be the teachers’ task, as moving towards more objective standards will create favorable conditions for innovation and introduction of new techniques teaching and strategies.
As the change is long-anticipated, the positive outcome for the schools which were previously deemed underperforming will likely result in a positive influence. Thus, successful implementation is the main strong point that will aid the process in subsequent years. The second one is the innovation which will become possible in a favorable climate and is usually embraced by the students. However, two negative influences are likely to emerge. First, the federal authorities may resist change as it takes the direction where they have little influence. Second, the schools which did not have trouble with the previous policy will be reluctant to participate in the process.
Both influences can be effectively addressed by the fifth core component, understanding change. The systemic nature of the planned change requires the active involvement of all the organizations of the district. While according to Fullan (2001) change is largely unpredictable at the early stage, three main directions are suggested as a preliminary plan. First, the benefits must be rigorously assessed and reported to ensure the complete understanding by the affiliates. Second, the regulations on the federal level must be preserved wherever possible to deescalate the possible conflict. Third, the reasons for resistance to change must be determined and analyzed as they may serve as a detection tool for the inconsistencies in the reform.
References
Coelli, M., & Green, D. A. (2012). Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31(1), 92-109.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Grissom, J. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? linking principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2552-2585.
Herman, R., Gates, S. M., Chavez-Herrerias, E. R., & Harris, M. (2016). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Meyers, C. V., & Murphy, J. (2007). Turning around failing schools: An analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(5), 631-659.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L.D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: the challenge of leading 21 st century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-203.