Obama’s “Blueprint” for NCLB Overhaul

Over the weekend, the Obama administration released a blueprint meant to overhaul No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that, for one, would provide localities and states greater control over how to deal with struggling schools. You can view the full blueprint here.

I believe that the blueprint is a positive step forward, but I still have some reservations on the heavy reliance on standardized testing. It seems to me that we spend too much time teaching to a test versus teaching our students how to actually think. We need to focus on allowing teachers to actually teach.

The blueprint actually looks to broaden the curriculum that students are measured against by allowing schools to include areas such as financial literacy, history, civics, the arts, foreign languages, etc.  The blueprint declares, “Students need a well-rounded education to contribute as citizens in our democracy and to thrive in a global economy.”

The problem with our current system is that it too heavily focuses on reading and mathematics at the expense of these other subjects. As Education Week reported back in 2007:

The Center on Education Progress is out with the latest of many NCLB reports. This one documents how schools are emphasizing reading and mathematics at the expense of other subjects in the NCLB era.

The report says that 44 percent of the 349 districts CEP surveyed reported that they reduced time in at least one of the following subjects: social studies, science, art and music, physical education, and lunch and/or recess. Those districts cut, on average, 30 minutes a day from those subjects. That represents 31 percent of instructional time in those schools, the report said.

Not surprisingly, the emphasis on reading and math was strongest in districts that have struggled to make AYP goals.

This “narrowing” of the curriculum is leaving our students ill-prepared to compete in a global economy. NCLB critics regularly charge that states are lowering the standards, not raising them, used to gauge academic performance in order to meet annual yearly progress (AYP) standards. This is mostly because they risk losing federal funds, if they are unable to meet the standards they are setting. So there is little incentive on setting standards higher.

The proposed blueprint looks to reward successful schools and remove the current punitive atmosphere.  It will use competitive grants to reward schools that have demonstrated excellence and have shown progress. In awarding these grants, it will also give priority to “states that have adopted common, state-developed, college- and career-ready standards.” These common standards and competitive grants will hopefully encourage states to raise the academic bar and not lower it. These common standards are a product of a yearlong effort by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA).

Overall, I’m encouraged by the reform-oriented approach of the blueprint; and I’m looking forward to further improvements in the legislation as it moves forward in Congress.

For more information on the blueprint, you can read an article by Education Week that does a good job of expounding on many of the reforms contained within it.