Comparing NCLB and the Obama Administration's Blueprint
Blog Post
May 5, 2010
In mid-March, the Obama Administration released its “Blueprint for Reform,” a lengthy document that outlined the President’s platform for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Yesterday, the Department of Education released a series of documents outlining the research that supports this Blueprint including a specific document on their plans for the future of standards and accountability under Title I. The research presented in the document demonstrates the shortcomings of the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law and how the Blueprint improves on these policies.
Some stakeholders and critics have complained that the Obama Administration’s ESEA Blueprint is not dramatically different from the current NCLB law or does not provide sufficient details to distinguish it from current law. In response, we created the table below that compares NCLB provisions to the Blueprint proposal. Now, you can decide whether the Obama Administration’s ideas for ESEA reauthorization represent a new era in federal education policy, are just more of the same, or don’t contain enough concrete detail either way.
For a printable PDF of this table, click here.
| Policy Area | No Child Left Behind Act | Obama Administration Blueprint for Reform |
| Overall Goal | All students scoring "proficient" or higher on state reading and math tests by 2014. | All students graduating or on track to graduate from high school ready for college and a career by 2020. |
| Student Achievement Measures | Schools must meet "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) as defined by the state. Adequate yearly progress refers to the amount of progress students and subgroups of student in a state, district, or school must make in a given year toward reaching 100 percent proficiency in a subject by 2014. The state definition of AYP must apply the same high standards of academic achievement to all public elementary school and secondary school students in the state; result in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students; measure the progress of public elementary schools, secondary schools and local educational agencies and the state based primarily on the state’s academic assessments; includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each student subgroup. AYP measurements must be disagregated by student subgroup. If one subgroup does not meet AYP, the whole school will be identified as failing to meet AYP. | States and districts will collect and make public data on overall student achievement, individual student growth, and school progress in English language arts and mathematics, student academic achievement in science, and if states choose, student academic achievement and growth in other subjects, such as history. At the high school level, this data will also include graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and rates of college enrollment without need for remediation. All data must be disaggregated by student subgroup. Schools and districts will also collect information about teaching and learning conditions, disciplinary incidents, or student, parent, or school staff surveys about their school experience. Performance targets for whole-school and subgroup achievement will guide improvement strategies or identify schools for rewards. |
| Rewards and Recognition for Successful States, Districts, and Schools | States are encouraged to recognize distinguished districts that have been successful in improving academic outcomes for students. The law specifies that school districts may reward successful teachers financially. | High performing schools, districts, and states would receive monetary rewards and flexibility in spending federal funds. |
| Categorizing Low-Performing Schools | Schools in which one subgroup fails to meet AYP are labeled as failing AYP as a whole. Schools that fail to meet AYP but are improving over time are labeled as failing AYP. Interventions for failing schools are the same regardless of why the schools are failing. | Schools districts can categorize sturggling schools based on the specific subgroup of students that are not meeting performance targets to determine the appropriate improvement and support strategies. |
| Consequences for Struggling States, Districts, and Schools | Schools not making "adequate yearly progress" for two consecutive years are labeled "in need of improvement" and are required to offer students the opportunity to transfer to a better performing school in the district. After one year under the designation, the school must begin offering supplemental educational services to students and the LEA must provide technical assistance to the school. After one year of this if the school is still failing, the school must begin corrective action. After one year of corrective action, the school goes into restructuring. (Details of corrective action and restructuring below.) | The lowest performing 5 percent of schools in each state would be labeled “Challenge” schools and would be required to implement one of four turnaround models described below. Schools in the next lowest 5 percent would be in a "Warning" category, and states and school districts would be required to implement research-based, locally-determined strategies to help them improve. Another category of Challenge schools will be those that are not closing significant, persistent achievement gaps. They will be required to implement data-driven interventions to support those students who are farthest behind and close the achievement gap. |
| Required School Improvement Activities | Corrective action:
| Schools identified for turnaround can use one of four turnaround models:
|
| Assessments | States will implement high-quality, yearly student academic assessments in grades 3-8 and once in high schools that include, at a minimum, academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science that will be used as the primary means of determining the yearly performance of students compared to the state's challenging student academic achievement standards. | States will implement assessments that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards that states will either develop with their 4-year public university systems to prevent the need for remediation or with other states to create state-developed common standards that build toward college- and career-readiness. By 2015, grants will only be available to states who have assessments based on standards that are common to a significant number of other states. |
| Teacher Qualifications | States must ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects in each public elementary school and secondary school are deemed highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year. To be deemed highly qualified, teachers must have:
| States will develop definitions of “effective teacher,” “effective principal,” “highly effective teacher,” and “highly effective principal” in collaboration with teachers, principals, and other stakeholders. These definitions will be based on students growth and other measures like classroom observations and evaluations. States will be required to develop plans to ensure the equitable distribution of teachers and principals that receive at least an “effective” rating. |
| Teacher Data Systems | None. | State-level data systems will link information on teacher and principal preparation programs to the job placement, student growth, and retention outcomes of their graduates. |