The New NCLB Blueprint: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Earlier this week, the Obama administration introduced a blueprint for education reform to Congress. The slick 45-page document doesn’t much resemble a legislative text, but it does contain the outline of a massive overhaul of the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), otherwise known as NCLB.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has already indicated that the first thing to go will be the name itself. “No Child Left Behind” has a lot of baggage that goes along with it, evoking harsh penalties for struggling schools, an over-emphasis on standardized testing that has elicited teacher resentment, and a failure to meet its goal of student proficiency by 2014.

The new blueprint for the yet-to-be-named reform plan presents a variety of changes while sticking to some of NCLB’s defining characteristics, and has already drawn both support and criticism from teachers, administrators, and legislators. In the mix is some good, some bad, and some bound to cause ugly clashes down the line:

The Good:

• There's a different take on student proficiency. Under Bush's NCLB, students were measured according to a common yardstick, which meant that kids who entered the classroom already behind would end the year out as still failing when compared to their peers, even if they made good progress over the course of that year. The new plan calls for more attention to individual student growth, not just how well a child measures up to the students around him.
• There's more emphasis on teacher quality. Under Bush's NCLB, teachers were considered qualified if they held certification in the subject or areas in which they taught. However, ongoing evaluation and assessment of teachers based on how their students actually performed was spotty at best. The new plan would place more emphasis on professional development and a teacher's success in the classroom. Merit pay and other experimental programs are part of the plan.

The Bad:

• High-stakes testing is here to stay. NCLB is notable for its strong emphasis on testing and accountability, and the new blueprint won't change much in this area. Yearly testing in reading and math would still be required in grades 3-8, and many teachers are up in arms about the practice, saying it narrows the curriculum, stifles teachers, and places unhealthy pressures on children.

• States and districts may be left holding the bag. The plan focuses most of its attention on turnaround schemes for the bottom 10% of schools, and more flexibility for the top 5%. Where does that leave the schools in the middle? Overextended and cash-strapped states and districts may have to fend for themselves when it comes to 85% of schools.

The Ugly:

• Teachers unions hate it. Dennis Van Roekel, president of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, said in a statement that the NEA is "disappointed" by the overemphasis on standardized testing, competitive structure of education grants, and "scapegoating" of teachers. Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, seconded the criticisms, saying that "despite some promising rhetoric, this blueprint places 100 percent of the responsibility on teachers and gives them zero percent authority." Without the NEA and AFT behind the reforms, it could be an uphill battle.

• Money money money. The new plan introduces a system of competitive grants designed to encourage innovative programs and initiatives. Much like the Race to the Top competition currently underway, states and local districts would have to vie aggressively for these funds. This business-oriented approach could well foster a good return on investment, but it could also leave a lot of losers in the dust.

Photo credit: dcJohn