Blueprint for Reform

Gena Orazi

Blueprint for Reform Position Blog

10/22/11

           

In March of 2010, the Blueprint for Reform was created by the Obama administration (Department of Education, 2010). The principle ideas of the blueprint seek to fix the negative aspects of NCLB, but does President Obama’s blueprint accomplish this? There are compelling arguments for both sides.  This is a scary time to be a teacher. During my research of this topic I found that many are asking the same questions and have the same concerns: Are these reforms going to be “here today and gone tomorrow? If our students’ test scores aren’t high enough will we lose our jobs? Will the focus on test scores further narrow our curriculum even further?

            The Blueprint for Reform has undeniable strengths. While NCLB focused on test scores and numbers, the blueprint seeks to recognize gains and still offers rewards for schools that do not meet AYP. This is by far one of the blueprint’s biggest strengths. When only numbers and scores are taken into consideration, a student’s individual gains are not recognized, especially those students in special education and racial categories. The focus will be on growth not just achievement based on test scores, according to proponents of this initiative (Department of Education, 2010). Also the 2014 deadline has been extended to 2020, due to the fact that it is an unrealistic goal. Another strength is the new shared accountability system between states, districts, and schools. There are critics of the blueprint that argue it is too vague, but the supporters counter that argument by saying it is flexible. NCLB was rigid and punitive. The federal government is not giving every school once specific model to follow, but it gives local officials the opportunity to do what is best for each particular school and its students.

            There are some cons associated with the Blueprint for Reform. There are many that believe President Obama’s “plan to renovate a flawed law” is just “NCLB part two” (Schwartz, 2010). Although his plan offers students a well-rounded education, “in reality teaching such a variety of subjects in underfunded overstretched schools is impossible if students are also expected to ace standardized tests” (Schwartz, 2010). Also, some believe two of the four models in the blueprint actually do not reform schools that fail, but give up on them. If there isn’t improvement in a particular school, the state is able to turn it into a charter school or close the school altogether. Cuts to staff are a part of the models also. Energy would be focused on the schools that are truly failing, and that will involve dismissing many administrators and principals. Sam Chaltain, the national director of the Forum for Education and Democracy explained, “every school is different, so not all schools will be able to succeed with one of the four models. It’s discouraging to see that we’ve boiled it down to these four prescriptions. We’re still looking for simple answers to complex problems.” The grants for innovative teaching methods are a positive aspect of the blueprint, but more funding is given to charter schools for these proposed methods.

            On a personal note, I am a self-contained special education teacher. My students are in the 8^th grade and on average they are functioning on a 4 to 5^th grade level with some even lower. As mandated I am teaching them the regular education curriculum with modifications. This is quite a struggle for me. It was mentioned that this initiative is not as punitive as NCLB, but from what I read the message is still saying “teach to the test.” Well, how am I supposed to teach to a test that is written 3 to 4 grade levels above my students’ levels? Why am I teaching my students slope and y-intercept when they can’t even read the question independently? I am not saying that my students do not have the ability to make academic achievements and further their education. I am saying that they may never make “proficient” on a state test, and that does not mean that I am doing something wrong in my teaching. We need to make a change, and I may not have the answer, but I’m not seeing the proof that this blueprint truly takes into consideration our minority and special education groups and their need for different standards.

            So is this Blueprint for Reform the answer to some of the downfalls of NCLB? In my opinion it is too early to determine an answer to this complex question. There are still several weaknesses in this new blueprint, but there are also strengths. According to our president, in 2020 our students’ success and college completion rate will put the U.S. in the lead amongst other nations in the world. We shall see.