No Child Left Behind Charter School Funding - Research Paper Example

? Policy Evaluation Analysis: No Child Left Behind-Charter School Funding Policy Evaluation Analysis: No Child Left Behind-Charter School Funding The US No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is an Act concerning education in public schools. The act was originally proposed by the Bush administration and was signed into law on 8th January, 2002 by president George W. Bush. NCLB requires equal treatment of all students attending schools that are run by the government and are funded through federal money. Under this, the Act requires an annual state-wide administration of standardized test to all students attending the government-run schools (Lowe and Kantor, 2006). Currently, public education in the US is offered by district public schools and Charter schools according to Stuart (2002). Charter schools are not government-run, instead, they are opened and attended by choice. The policy of funding Charter schools using federal funds was authorized by President Bush in the NCLB Act in order to stimulate their development. However, this is done indirectly done by transferring the money allocated for each child enrolled in a Charter school, from their former district schools. This means that the relationship between a Charter school and the district sponsoring it could facilitate or hinder its access to federal funding (US Government Accountancy Office 1998). Some Charter schools are considered as LEAs and receive direct deferral funding. Finnigan et al (2004) and Ascher et al. (2004) state that in terms of funding, charter schools receive funding according to enrollment. In many cases, Charter schools receive lesser funds as compared to other public schools due to imperfections in money transfers (Reville, 2007). Stuart (2002) adds that Charter schools do not receive funding for securing facilities. This causes them to seek operation costs outside the federal funds for example through donation. However there is a recent federal legislation which allows that allocation of start-up costs to Charter schools. This paper gives an evaluation and analysis of this policy. Policy evaluation time The policy of using federal money to fund Charter schools has to be evaluated before the end of the next financial year. This is because the results from the evaluation will be useful in determining any changes that are required in terms of funding. For example, it will help in determining the effect of this funding policy on Charter schools since it started in 2002 as noted by Finnigan et al. (200). These include the performance of Charter schools, costs, quality, program, and goal attainment levels. A knowledge of the extent of the achievement of its goals will therefore determine amount of funding or additional funding required. These changes will then be included in the next federal budget and will be reflected in the amount of money set aside for public education. Policy evaluation process According to Theodoulou and Koffins (2004), policy evaluation is a critical way of determining whether a policy works or not, whether it is achieving its intended functions and whether its impacts are intentional or not. In order to determine the successful implementation and outcomes of a certain policy, an all round evaluation has to be conducted. This means that an application of the four policy evaluation typologies should be done. These include process evaluation, impact evaluation, outcome evaluation and cost-benefit evaluation. Process evaluation analyses how well a certain program or policy is being implemented. It is normally done with an aim of determining necessary actions that are required to improve its implementation. In order to achieve this, the government has to determine why the policy is performing at current levels and identify any problems. This requires the use of sampling in order to determine the extent to which Charter schools have been receiving federal funds, the amounts and effectiveness in delivery of funds (Theodoulou and Koffins, 2004). The government has to conduct outcome evaluation in which an analysis of the impacts of the policy on the population is done (Finnigan et al., 2004). This will be an indication of whether the policy has produced the desired changes through the use of readily available. This evaluation is done by making simple and direct observation of the tangible and readily available results of the policy. Simple random sampling techniques where few schools are studied to reveal the impacts of the policy can also be applied. Questionnaires are also effective in achieving this. Impact evaluation is done in order to determine if a given policy has achieved its intended impact in relation to the views of its supporters and opposers (Finnigan et al., 2004). This will determine if the policy has impacted on is target and the original problem it was meant to solve. Successful impact evaluation is achieved by analyzing the policy’s theoretical goals, actual goals, objectives and results. One should also examine if the results are intended or not. A cost-benefit on the policy will form a basis of comparing the costs associated with the implementation f a policy and he benefits it has generated. A combination of random sampling is required for this purpose. The sampled individuals will tell of their tangible and intangible gains obtained under the policy. For example, improved quality of life, increased access to job market or higher education, and improved quality of the society for the society. Its results are used to determine the efficacy of the policy (Finnigan et al, 2004). Responsibilities of carrying out the studies and controlling the process The studies relevant to the evaluation of the policy will be carried out by officers from the US departed of education. Such officers have a neutral point on the matter and this will ensure that the results are unbiased. These officers will work closely with Chartering authorities, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and management organizations of charter schools. The founders of the schools, for example parents or teachers, educational enterprisers, the society, and their sponsors should also participate to ensure that the results are informative and most relevant. Although all the above-mentioned individuals and groups may participate, the USD department of education will be charged with the responsibility of controlling the process as has always been the case ((Finnigan et al., 2004). Possible end results Process evaluation is likely to reveal that there are still problems associates with the implementation of the policy. This will be evidenced by the large number of charter schools which claim to receive less funding as compared to other public schools. This means there is a weakness in the system of transfer of learner funds between the two types of schools. Bifulco and Ladd (2006) state that in some cases, the level of performance of charter schools is low as compared to other public schools. This can be highly attributed to difference in funding between charter schools and other public schools, for example they do not receive funding for acquisition of assets. Charter schools also spend money in paying rent and his reduces the amount of money available for the acquisition of teaching-learning materials (US Department of Education, 2004). According to The Centre of Education Forum (2008), federal funding of charter schools does not deprive other public schools of money. This is bound to be true because if a child shifts to a Charter school, the child’s funding is also transferred. This means they take only what belongs to the specific child. However, it is true to say that they on their power to maximize economies of scale. There are some cases in which poor relationship between a charter schools and the district sponsoring it affects its federal funding. This could be positively or negatively. Some charter schools are receiving a lot of money from donors hence their total funding exceed those of other public schools. According to Molnar (1996), some Charter schools are flourishing more than the other public schools. This brings in some form of healthy competition that motivates the district schools to provide better services. Beneficiaries of the evaluation process Charter schools are going to benefit most from the results obtained from the policy evaluation process. For example, results from process evaluation will enable the government to note any weaknesses and shortcomings in the administration of the policy (Bifulco & Ladd, 2006). This will therefore prompt the adoption of better strategies that will help in improving the implementation of the policy in terms of its service delivery aspects. Solutions will be developed for the problems and these will be implemented accordingly. Results from impact evaluation will determine if the policy is addressing its original aim problems, in this case, to stimulate the development of Charter schools (Bifulco & Ladd, 2006). If it is not, the main drawback will be identified. Ethical and social concerns that must be considered before undertaking the evaluation One of the ethical concerns that should e considered when carrying out the evaluation process is informed consent. According Silva and Sorrell (1988), the evaluators should ensure that in all settings, information is obtained under valid consent. The evaluators should also consider the privacy of the informants. The research participants should be protected to the greatest extend possible. This means the information should not be used to their disadvantage, for example, it should not lead to their sacking. The research should display originality hence plagiarism should be avoided. Plagiarism includes using intellectual property without expressing the consent of or acknowledging the owner of those ideas, failing to cite authors of lifted works or copying results produced by other researchers (Price, 1994). The autonomy of the participants should be respected by all the evaluators. This included the protection of all their school records. The evaluators should avoid any form of research misconduct during and after the study according to Price (1994). This includes amoral relations with the participants, obtaining information through deceptive methods and data misrepresentation. The evaluators should have a ‘scholarly endeavor’ mindset. This means they will focus on obtaining knowledge and truth alone. The whole process must be guided by trust and accountability (Price, 1994). Impacts of financial legislation on the policy and its development Financial legislations have impacted positively on the policy and its development because they promote the funding of Charter schools through federal funds. An example of this is Public Law 105-278. This law requires the State Secretary and states to see to it that Charter schools are given the federal funding they eligible for within a period of five months after schools open (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). This equally applies when they significantly expand their enrolment. Conclusion The implementation of the policy supporting the funding of Charter schools using federal money has achieved to a significant. However, the policy in some way hinders the development of the Charter schools. For example, the policy does not fund star up projects initiated or required by Charter schools. This has made it hard for Charter schools to succeed without substantial non-profit and even for-profit finding. This means that a thorough evaluation of the policy is required to determine their outcomes, impacts and cost-benefit aspects. Results from evaluation of the policy will be used to give a way forward. These include the criteria for deciding the amount of money allocated and the extent of funding, for example the extension of funding to start-up projects. There might also be need to decide on the best mode of funding the Charter schools, whether direct or indirect. The evaluation and analysis of the policy is important because it will determine the amount of money that the federal government will set aside for all schools that are subject to public funding. References Ascher, C. et al. (2004). The finance gap: charter schools and their facilities – finding nine-month study. Institute for Education Policy, New York University. Retrieved from www.lisc.org/resources/assets/asset_upload_file678_6781.pdf. Viewed on 29th July, 2011. Bifulco, R. & Ladd, H. (2006). "The impacts of Charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina". Education Finance and Policy, (1), pp 50–90. Finnigan, K. et al. (2004). Evaluation of the public Charter schools program: Final report. Washington, DC: SRI International. Lowe, R. and Kantor, H. (2006). From new deal to no deal: no child left behind act and the devolution of responsibility for equal opportunity. 76:4. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Educational Review. Molnar, Alex. (1996). Charter schools: the smiling face of dis-investment. Educational Leadership. (2), pp 9-15. Price, A. (1994). Definitions and boundaries of research misconduct: perspectives from a federal government viewpoint. Journal of Higher Education, (65), pp 287-297. Reville, P. (October 2007). Stop the narrowing of the curriculum by ‘right-sizing’ school time. Education Week 24. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Silva, M. and Sorrell, J. (1988). Enhancing comprehension of information for informed consent: A review of empirical research. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, (1), pp 1-5. Stuart, A. (2002). Where Charter School Policy Fails. Teachers College Press. The Centre of Education Forum. (2008). Charter schools: six common criticisms from opponents …and proof that they are unfounded. Retrieved from http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CSCritics.pdf. Theodoulou, S. & Koffins, C. (2004). The art of the game: understanding public policy. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/welcome/plsc490/lesson05_07.html. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Office of the Under Secretary, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Education. US Government Accountancy Office. (1998). Charter Schools: Federal Funding Available but Barriers Exist. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-98-84. Read More