Policy Analysis
No Child Left Behind to The Blueprint for Reform/Rise to The Top Program
Frances Kaye Williams

PAD 510: Into to Public Policy Analysis
Strayer University
Scholl of Professional Studies

Thomas Walkington
PAD 510 Intro Public Policy Analysis
Strayer University
January 27, 2014

Abstract
The purpose of this research is to identify the reformation from the No Child Left behind Act that was reform from President Bush to the President Obama Blue Print for Reform Act and the Raising to the Top for Education. The research proves that the reformation of the Blue Print has greatly increased in the education of all children to indulge in a higher education. This reformation has not only help with the children but the welfare of the economy and the communities as well. The report identifies key elements of the policy and makes recommendations for future policy development identifying official and unofficial actors, interest groups, the influence of two of those actors, their influence in further development of the policy

Executive Summary
A substantial body of evidence has shown that past reforms have largely failed to improve schools, but The Blue Print for Reform along with the Rise to The Top Program (RTTT) has made a significant change in education. The Blueprint for Reform builds on the significant reforms already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 around four areas: (1) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader; (2) Providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children's schools, and to educators to help them improve their students' learning; (3) Implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and (4) Improving student learning and achievement in America's lowest-performing schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions.Race to the Top marks a historic moment in American education. This initiative offers bold incentives to states willing to spur systemic reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Race to the Top has ushered in significant change in our education system, particularly in raising standards and aligning policies and structures to the goal of college and career readiness. Race to the Top has helped drive states nationwide to pursue higher standards, improve teacher effectiveness, use data effectively in the classroom, and adopt new strategies to help struggling schools

Table of Contents
Chapter I: Historical Perspective of NCLB to The Blue Print Reform ………………..3 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………3 Historical Perspective ………………………………………………………………5-7 The Social, Economic, and Political environments ………………………………...7-9 Critique of Policy……………………………………………………………………9-14 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...14-16
Chapter II: Analyzing the Policy ………………………………………………………….17 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..18 Key Players…………………………………………………………………………..18 Official, Unofficial, and Interest Group …………………………………………….18-19 Key Actors……………………………………………………………………………19-20 Political Influence…………………………………………………………………….20-21 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….22
Chapter III: Policy Position…………………………………………………………………23 Favor of Policy ……………………………………………………………………….23 Against the Policy…………………………………………………………………….24 Argument in Favor of Policy…………………………………………………………25 Argument against the Policy…………………………………………………………26
References……………………………………………………………………………………27-28

Chapter 1
Emerging Issues
Historical Perspectives
In 2000, voters to see Gov. Bush as a different kind of Republican who would restore dignity and honor to a tarnished White House. In 2004, voters to see Pres. Bush as a strong leader who, even if you didn't agree with him, was making decisions on what he thought would best protect America. Bush said education was the civil rights struggle of our time or that the absence of an accountability system in our schools meant black, brown, poor, and rural children were getting left behind, it gave listeners important information about his respect and concern for every family and deepened the impression that he was a different kind of Republican whom suburban voters could be proud to support. (Courage and Consequence, by Karl Rove, p. 6-7 , Mar 9, 2010). President W. Bush wanted to transform schools by raising standards and focusing on results. He was insisting on accountability, empowering parents & teachers, and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools, President Bush wanted to do this by testing every child, by doing this it would identify those who need help and providing a record level of funding, challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations is the spirit of our education reform and the commitment of our country. (Source: 2004 Republican Convention Acceptance Speech, Sep 2, 2004) On NCLB, George Bush's heart was in the right place, but his methodology was all messed up. I mean the concept of not leaving any child left behind, to educate all children, is a good concept, but it became incredibly complicated, underfunded and put a heavy reliance on things like standardized testing. As a reform measure, it does not work.
The No Child Left Behind Act's main provisions ignore the fact that poorly performing students will somehow become good readers by moving to a school with good scores. The chance that the previously successful school will find its average scores pulled down by the new students. Since the school's performance is rated by five categories of students and watching their scores, the school could decline into a poor category.
Standardized testing is an ineffective way to assess students on their learning. These tests are not helpful because not all students learn the same way. The debate about these test have gone for a long period of time. Solutions must be made and alternatives are the only key. The problems with the No Child Left Behind law are myriad. Several come to mind right off the bat: its dependence on standardized test scores; linking merit pay to test scores; and the goal of achieving 100% proficiency by 2014 is totally unrealistic. Another huge problem with NCLB that many supporters of the law ignore is that it places no consequences on the students who do not meet proficiency levels.
In March of 2010, the Obama Administration sent to Congress a Blueprint for Reform (RTTP) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, addressing the issues created by No Child Left Behind, while continuing to shine a bright light on closing the achievement gap. Under the Administration's blueprint for ESEA reauthorization, state accountability systems will set a high bar of all students graduating from high school ready to succeed in college and careers. The accountability system also will recognize and reward high-poverty schools and districts that are showing improvement in getting their students on the path to success, using measures of progress and growth. States and districts will continue to focus on the achievement gap by identifying and intervening in schools that are persistently failing to close those gaps. For other schools, states and districts would have flexibility to determine appropriate improvement and support options.
The blueprint asks states and districts to develop meaningful ways of measuring teacher and principal effectiveness in order to provide better support for educators, enhance the profession through recognizing and rewarding excellence, and ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great principal. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/reforming-no-child-left-behind)
Social, Economic, and Political environments for the times the policies
The modern era is considered one of the most politically polarized in history. On Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans frequently engage in highly charged ideological battles. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) marks the largest intervention of the federal government into education in the history of the United States. NCLB received and continues to receive support, in part because it promises to improve student learning and to close the achievement gap between White students and students of color. However, NCLB has failed to live up to its promises and may exacerbate inequality. Furthermore, by focusing on education as the solution to social and economic inequality, it diverts the public’s attention away from the issues such as poverty, lack of decent paying jobs and health care, that need to be confronted if inequality is to be reduced. When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became law in 2002, it passed the Senate and House with large majorities1 and has led to the largest intervention by the federal government into education in the history of the United States. NCLB significantly transforms publicly funded education from birth through adulthood. NCLB received political support because it, like the standards, testing and accountability movement on which it builds, ostensibly aims to improve education for all, especially for those students who have been historically disadvantaged, and to close the achievement gap between White students and students of color. However, NCLB promises more than it delivers. First, adequate yearly progress indicators provides little information on whether schools are making progress but, instead, serve to unfairly punish urban schools, the schools mostly likely to serve students of color and students living in poverty. Second, the standardized tests tend to be an unreliable and invalid means of assessing student learning and have had other negative, perhaps unintended, but predictable consequences for student learning. Third, NCLB has narrowed the curriculum, which has made (and is making) it more difficult for teachers to connect classroom activities to students’ own lives, interests and culture. (http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/foundations/Hursh.pdf) To date, President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative has dedicated over $4 billion to 19 states that have created robust plans that address the four key areas of K-12 education reform as described below. These states serve 22 million students and employ 1.5 million teachers in 42,000 schools, representing 45 percent of all K-12 students and 42 percent of all low-income students nationwide. The four key areas of reform include: * Development of rigorous standards and better assessments * Adoption of better data systems to provide schools, teachers, and parents with information about student progress * Support for teachers and school leaders to become more effective * Increased emphasis and resources for the rigorous interventions needed to turn around the lowest-performing schools
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia submitted comprehensive reform plans to compete in the Race to the Top competition. While 19 states have received funding so far, 34 states modified state education laws or policies to facilitate needed change, and 48 states worked together to create a voluntary set of rigorous college- and career-ready standards.
In 2012, the Obama Administration launched a Race to the Top competition at the school district level. Known as Race to the Top – District, this program will invest nearly $400 million in 2012 in schools to create new models to personalize learning for students, so that they can engage their interests and take responsibility for their success.
Inspired by the education reform taking place in state K-12 systems nationwide, this next phase of RTT will build on the four core principles of reform at the classroom level, supplying teachers with the strategies and tools they need to help every student learn and succeed. The Race to the Top – District competition will encourage transformative change within schools, targeted toward leveraging, enhancing, and improving classroom practices and resources.

Critique each policy for its effectiveness of the time A notable divergence from the strident partisanship occurred in 2001 as a left-right coalition formed that successfully steered the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) through Congress. When President Bush signed the bill into law in January 2002. Some years after, some states and local school districts feel they are getting a raw deal because the federal government is not doing enough, especially in terms of funding, to help local educators meet the requirements of the act. The political opposition strikes at the heart of NCLB. The goal of making schools more equitable, in particular, of improving the education of children from poor families, brought together the bipartisan coalition supporting NCLB. Prior to NCLB, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) operated as a typical federal program pursuing redistributive objectives; it allocated additional resources to low income schools to purchase supplies, personnel, curricula, and other educational materials that schools in impoverished communities could not otherwise afford. Educators used these additional resources to improve the education of poor children. Reauthorizations of ESEA through 1994 left this arrangement intact. The theory was simple: more money produces better education, and high poverty schools need more money. The theory of NCLB is different. Resources are viewed as incentives. In exchange for federal monies, local educators agree to produce certain outcomes. If they do not produce the promised outcomes, federal funding is cut off. The sanctions of NCLB—parental choice, supplemental services, reconstitution of schools—are components of the new incentive structure and do not produce new revenue streams. Schools that do not make adequate yearly progress with black, Hispanic, or poor children face the threat of these sanctions. Putting a new incentive structure into place creates winners and losers, and we can expect those interests to play out in the politics surrounding NCLB's implementation. The educational system of the United States will always have problems that individuals will question and evaluate. It is inevitable that issues will arise due to changes and attitudes in society. Nevertheless, this is not something that an educational trend, teaching technique, or curriculum change can fix. However, the objective will remain positive and attainable as long as educators strive with respect to the purpose of educating all students in the most equitable way possible. (http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)
The blueprint builds on the significant reforms already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 around four areas: (1) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader; (2) Providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children’s schools, and to educators to help them improve their students’ learning; (3) Implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and (4) Improving student learning and achievement in America’s lowest-performing schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions. The purpose of the blueprint will encourage and support local innovation by creating fewer, larger, more flexible funding streams around areas integral to student success, giving states and districts flexibility to focus on local needs. New competitive funding streams will provide greater flexibility, reward results, and ensure that federal funds are used wisely. At the same time, districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape. Tackling persistent achievement gaps requires public agencies, community organizations, and families to share responsibility for improving outcomes for students. We will prioritize programs that include a comprehensive redesign of the school day, week, or year, that promote schools as the center of their communities, or that partner with community organizations. Our proposal will invest in new models that keep students safe, supported, and healthy both in and out of school, and that support strategies to better engage families and community members in their children’s education. (http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)
George W. Bush No Child Left behind act seeks to narrow the class and racial achievement gap in the United States by creating common expectations for all. NCLB has shown mixed success in eliminating the racial achievement gap. Although test scores are improving, they are improving equally for all races, which mean that minority students are still behind whites. Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups" Each state is responsible for defining major racial and ethnic subgroups itself. Many previous state-created systems of accountability measured only average school performance—so schools could be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students. The administration and Congress backed NCLB massive increases in funding for elementary and secondary education funding. Total federal education funding increased from $42.2 billion to $55.7 billion from 2001, the fiscal year before the law's passage, to fiscal year 2004. According to the book, NCLB Meets School Realities, the act was put into action during a time of fiscal crisis for most states. While states were being forced to make budget cuts, including in the area of education, they had to incur additional expenses to comply with the requirements of the NCLB Act. The funding they received from the federal government in support of NCLB was not enough to cover the added expense necessary to adhere to the new law. (http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)
President Obama believes that education is a cornerstone of creating an American economy built to last. Building a world-class education system and high-quality job training opportunities will equip the American economy to advance business growth, encourage new investment and hiring, spark innovation, and promote continued economic growth and prosperity. Through several critical investments at the K-12 level, the Administration is fostering the type of growth, innovation, and transformation that is needed to improve our schools and achieve better outcomes for high-need students. Since the beginning of his Administration, the President has dedicated over $4 billion to implement the bold reforms needed to transform the lowest-performing schools in America. Title I School Improvement Grants provide up to $6 million per school over three years to dramatically transform these lowest-performing schools into safe learning environments where students can thrive. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/)
With the No Child Left Behind Act critics argue that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that the school believes increases test performance, rather than focus on deeper understanding of the overall curriculum. For example, a teacher who knows that all questions on a math test are simple addition problems (e.g., what is 2 + 3?) might not invest any class time on the practical applications of addition, to leave more time for the material the test assesses. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test." "Teaching to the test" has been observed to raise test scores, though not as much as other teaching techniques. Many teachers who practice “teaching to the test” misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. Some people oppose the use of standardized testing, or any type of testing, to determine educational quality. They prefer alternatives such as teacher opinions, class work, and performance-based assessment; some also argue that NCLB testing is negative for non-English-language immersion schools, particularly those that immerse students in Native American languages, many of which are endangered and in critical need of new speakers. Native students who learn in their heritage languages have lower dropout rates and higher academic achievement than those who learn in English, yet NCLB requires even very young students to take standardized tests in English, disrupting the immersion environment of these schools that is crucial for student success. (http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)
The Obama administration has responded to a major criticism of NCLB the lack of differentiation between schools showing some progress and those consistently failing. Blueprint will recognize individual student growth and school wide progress overtime. The blueprint also distributes responsibility for student performance across the school district, and state level. The blueprint proposes that states receive funds to assist these reward districts so that schools can continue their efforts. The Blue print like the NCLB act uses high stakes testing. (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/leonguerrero4e/study/materials/cqresearcher/05434_nclb.pdf)
The blueprint asks states and districts to develop meaningful ways of measuring teacher and principal effectiveness in order to provide better support for educators, enhance the profession through recognizing and rewarding excellence, and ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great principal. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/reforming-no-child-left-behind)
Conclusion and Issue Identification
The Obama's Blueprint for Reform suggests a number of significant revisions to the current iteration of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act. The Blueprint for Reform emphasizes the administration's goal of preparing all students for college or a career through the implementation of rigorous state standards. It revises the accountability structure to reward schools, districts, and states that make steady progress in increasing student achievement. It offers districts flexibility in spending funds on human capital development in exchange for much-needed reforms to teacher and principal evaluation systems. It reflects the administration's strategy of encouraging innovation in all areas of government. (http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)
Comparison: NCLB vs. Blueprint for Reform
How are the state standards determined?
NCLB: The current law requires that states adopt challenging academic content and achievement standards for English language arts, mathematics, and science. State academic content standards must specify what students are expected to know and do at each grade level. The law imposes no requirements on the content or rigor of the standards developed by states. According to the Center for American Progress, this has led to a wide variation in the quality of state standards.
Blueprint: The Obama Administration would require states to develop and adopt standards in English language arts, and mathematics that prepare students for college and career readiness by high school graduation. These new standards will guide state efforts to reach the administration's goal of all students graduating college and career ready by 2020. States have two options in meeting this requirement. First, those states that choose to retain their current standards are directed to work with their public university system to ensure that the standards adequately prepare students to enter college without remediation. Or states can work together and collaboratively develop new common standards, similar to the recent efforts of the National Governor's Association to formulate common standards. How is student progress measured?
NCLB: States are required to implement an assessment system that measures students' mastery of the state standards. The law does not require states to use a certain type of test but does require tests to be “peer reviewed.” Again, quality varies across states because states are permitted to choose their testing instrument. Students in grades three through eight must be tested annually in reading, math and science. The state is responsible for determining he scores students must achieve to be classified as advanced, proficient, or basic. This data is then disaggregated by student subgroup: racial and ethnic groups, low-income students, students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency.
Blueprint: The blueprint suggests that states implement high -quality statewide assessments in English language arts and math that align with newly developed state standards. States will receive formula grants to develop these assessments. The blueprint proposes that only those states that have implemented assessment based on common state standards by 2015 will receive formula funds in an effort to create consistency across states accountability systems.
States will continue to collect disaggregated data on student achievement in English language arts and math, science, and other subjects determined by the state. At the high school level, states will also collect data on graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and rates of college enrollment without remediation. A system of performance targets created at the state level and based on school and subgroup growth and graduation rates will replace NCLB's three-tiered absolute measurement of advanced, proficient, and basic performance. (http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)

Chapter II: Analyzing the Policy
Summary of the Policy
The purpose of President Obama The Blueprint of Reform is to build on the significant reforms already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 around four areas: (1) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader; (2) Providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children’s schools, and to educators to help them improve their students’ learning; (3) Implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and (4) Improving student learning and achievement in America’s lowest-performing schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions. (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publicationtoc.html)
Key Elements The key elements of The Blueprint of Reform are to: College- and Career-Ready Students under this key element would fall; raise standards for all students; set a clear goal. Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School under this key element will fall; effective teachers and principals; elevate the teaching profession to focus on recognizing, encouraging, and rewarding excellence, our best teachers and leaders where they are needed most. Equity and Opportunity for All Students, under this key element would fall, vigorous and fair accountability for all. Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence, under this key element will fall; fostering a Race to the Top, Race to the Top has provided incentives for excellence by encouraging state and local leaders to work together on ambitious reforms .Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement under this key element will fall, fostering innovation and accelerating success.

Recommendations
Every child in America deserves a world-class education. Today, more than ever, a world-class education is a prerequisite for success. America was once the best educated nation in the world. A generation ago, we led all nations in college completion, but today, 10 countries have passed us. It is not that their students are smarter than ours. It is that these countries are being smarter about how to educate their students. And the countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. We must do better. Together, we must achieve a new goal, that by 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in college completion. We must raise the expectations for our students, for our schools, and for ourselves – this must be a national priority. We must ensure that every student graduates from high school well prepared for college and a career. A world-class education is also a moral imperative – the key to securing a more equal, fair, and just society. We will not remain true to our highest ideals unless we do a far better job of educating each one of our sons and daughters. We will not be able to keep the American promise of equal opportunity if we fail to provide a world-class education to every child.
Key Players
Official, Unofficial, and Interest Groups The Key players involved with bringing The Blue Print Reform policy recommendations forward are President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the states and districts as official actors; and the teachers and students will act as an interest group
Actors and Their Roles Secretary Duncan and the President have both called education the civil right issue of our generation. In March of 2010, the Obama Administration sent to Congress a Blueprint for Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, addressing the issues created by No Child Left Behind, while continuing to shine a bright light on closing the achievement gap. Both President Obama and Secretary Duncan have a mission plan that profoundly increases standardization, centralization, and test- based accountability in our nation’s schools. (http://democracyeducationjournal.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=home). Under the Obama administration's blueprint, state accountability systems will set a high bar of all students graduating from high school ready to succeed in college and careers. The accountability system also will recognize and reward high-poverty schools and districts that are showing improvement getting their students on this path, using measures of progress and growth. States and districts will identify and take rigorous actions in the lowest-performing schools. The administration has proposed a significant investment to help states and districts in these efforts. With The Blueprint of Reform teacher can make the difference between a student who achieves at high levels and a student who slips through the cracks, and a great principal can help teachers succeed as part of a strong, well-supported instructional team. Research shows that top-performing teachers can make a dramatic difference in the achievement of their students, and suggests that the impact of being assigned to top-performing teachers year after year is enough to significantly narrow achievement gaps.
Key Official Actor President Obama is the Official Actor with the Blueprint of reform, President Obama's stated goal of ensuring that all students will be able to contribute as citizens in the U.S. democracy and to thrive in a global economy. This Blueprint has been designed as a new vision for the federal role in education through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Obama's Blueprint for Reform suggests a number of significant revisions to the current iteration of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act. The Blueprint for Reform emphasizes the administration's goal of preparing all students for college or a career through the implementation of rigorous state standards. It revises the accountability structure to reward schools, districts, and states that make steady progress in increasing student achievement. It offers districts flexibility in spending funds on human capital development in exchange for much-needed reforms to teacher and principal evaluation systems. And it reflects the administration's strategy of encouraging innovation in all areas of government. (http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)

Key Unofficial Actor The key Unofficial Actor with the Blueprint of Reform would be the state and the districts, the administration's proposal addresses the oft-ignored comparability loophole that allows districts to receive federal funds while ignoring gross funding inequities between high and low poverty schools. Districts will be required to show that their state and local funding levels measured by personnel and relevant non personnel expenditures are comparable at high and low poverty schools. States will also have to measure and report on resource inequities. Interest Group The interest group would be the students and the teachers ; they will be rewarded by having Equity and Opportunity for All Students, rigorous and fair accountability for all levels, meeting the needs of diverse learners, greater equity.
Political Influence

President Obama has a great vision for the future of our young children and their education. President Obama laid out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values. As an important part of keeping the American promise alive, the President called for a comprehensive approach to tackling rising college costs. In today’s global economy, a college education is no longer just a privilege for some, but rather a prerequisite for all. To reach a national goal of leading the world with the highest share of college graduates by 2020, we must make college more affordable. President Obama has emphasized the responsibility shared by the federal government, states, colleges, and universities to promote access and affordability in higher education, by reining in college costs, providing value for American families, and preparing students with a solid education to succeed in their careers. Over the past three years, the Obama Administration has taken historic steps to help students afford college, including reforming our student aid system to become more efficient and reliable and by expanding grant aid and college tax credits. The president will create incentives for states and colleges to keep costs under control through a $1billion investment in a new challenge to states to spur higher education reform focused on affordability and improved outcomes across state colleges and universities. The Race to the Top: College Affordability and Completion will reward states who are willing to drive systemic change in their higher education policies and practices, while doing more to contain their tuition and make it easier for students to earn a college degree. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/27/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-blueprint-keeping-college-affordable-and-wi) Secretary of State Arne Duncan stated that President Obama and he see education as an economic necessity and a moral imperative. Both President Obama and Secretary of State Arne Duncan want to achieve the goal of launching a comprehensive cradle-to-career reform agenda. He wants to transform the Department into an engine for innovation at the state and institutional levels; to create a climate of change; and to provide incentives for reform. (http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/11-2-07.pdf)
Conclusion
This blueprint builds on the significant reforms already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 around four areas: (1) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader; (2) Providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children's schools, and to educators to help them improve their students' learning; (3) Implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and (4) Improving student learning and achievement in America's lowest-performing schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions.

Chapter 3
Policy Positions
Favor of the Policy Here are the positive arguments the support President Obama Blueprint for Reform, the President’s ambitious goal that all children should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career is a bold step toward building a more just and more prosperous America. Every young person, no matter who they are or where they come from, has the potential for success, and we as a nation have an obligation to help them realize that potential. President’s blueprint for updating the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to include provisions that support comprehensive and integrated academic, health, and social service programs that improve the education and lives of children. The Blueprint for Reform is designed to meet the needs of students while accomplishing objectives that teachers have been concerned about for a long time. The Blueprint recognize the Importance of Teachers, it is based on two principles: 1) Great teachers matter; and 2) Not all teachers are equally effective. With this the teachers are recognized and supported as unique professionals. The Blueprint has great assessments that measure complex skills, ensuring that students are gaining the knowledge and skills they need the real world. The Blueprint for Reform encourages schools to use data in fundamentally different ways. The Blueprint for reform has more funds to reach high goals; this will bring on much more positive and empowering position on student’s achievements. With the Blue Print for Reform it will make teachers take a bold and courageous step to completely transform what they have to offer students in our country so that all have equal access to a quality education. The Blueprint asks teachers to deeply examine their practice and to be willing to improve it to meet the needs of students today. The Blueprint challenges us all to live what we believe and that is that all students can learn and that they are all work our investments. (http://www.communitiesinschools.org/press-room/resource/communities-in-schools-applauds)
Against the Policy According to Sam Chaltain, the national director of the Forum for Education and Democracy, the Blueprint for Reform lower scores lead to failing schools. The blueprint lists four models to "turn around" failing schools, but two of them essentially give up on the schools altogether. If a school does not improve sufficiently, the state will either close the school or turn it into a charter school. The other two models promote states working with the school toward improvement, but allow significant cuts to staff. NCLB implements similar strategies for failing schools but only after the school has failed for six consecutive years and taken gradual steps toward recovery, such as adopting a new curriculum. Under President Obama's blueprint, removing such a large number of teachers so suddenly would create chaos, not help students. But the severity of the strategies is not the problem, said Chaltain. He explained that 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," he said. "We're still looking for simple answers to complex problems." But devising a method to accurately assess students and teachers is more easily said than done. To improve schools, not just test scores, America needs a more holistic approach to education - targeting not just the schools, but their surrounding environments. The blueprint does attempt to address the need for a school community: Sections in the blueprint focus on improving student health through programs confronting violence and substance abuse and promoting healthy eating and exercise, and it promises competitive grants to fund innovative teaching methods and education in foreign languages, the arts, history and other subjects. (http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/story/10092)
Argument In Favor of the Policy
The blueprint is a praiseworthy proposal that highlights all of the major problems with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and U.S. education, providing the proper initiatives to fix them. America wants to believe President Obama when he says he can reform education in the United States and reverse the disaster that is No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Unfortunately, Obama's blueprint for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization looks awfully familiar. Welcome to NCLB, part two. At the heart of NCLB is a worthy goal: Ensure that every student is proficient in reading and math. This objective is one of the most important in education, but NCLB plans to achieve it in the wrong way. NCLB holds schools accountable for success or failure and measures student achievement through test scores that do not measure the entirety of the learning experience. The plan also sets absolute and arbitrary deadlines for progress, transforming public education into a nightmare of teaching to the test. President Obama claims that the blueprint is "a plan to renovate a flawed law, “but the blueprint contains more of the frustrating policy of the last eight years President Obama promises students "a well-rounded education," encompassing "literacy to mathematics, science and technology to history, civics, foreign languages, the arts, financial literacy and other subjects." In reality, teaching such a variety of subjects in under-funded, over-stretched schools is impossible if students are also expected to ace standardized tests. By 2020, the blueprint expects all graduating high school students to be "college- and career-ready." While this label sounds impressive, it only indicates small changes in standardized testing's measure of "proficiency." The blueprint continues where NCLB left off in counting students as numbers, not as individuals. (http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/story/10092)

Argument Against the Policy The President should re-examine his reliance on standardized testing to identify the best teachers and schools and the worst teachers and schools. The tests are simply not adequate to their expectations.
Here are some evidence arguments that will support my argument the latest example of how test results can be doctored is the New York state testing scandal, which broke open this week. The pass rates on the state tests had soared year after year, to the point where they became ridiculous to all but the credulous The whole house of cards came crashing down this week after the state raised the proficiency bar from the low point to which it had sunk. In 2009, 86.4% of the state's students were "proficient" in math, but the number in 2010 plummeted to 61%. In 2009, 77.4% were "proficient" in reading, but now it is only 53.2%.
The latest test scores were especially startling for New York City, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg staked his reputation on their meteoric rise. He was re-elected because of the supposedly historic increase in test scores and used them to win renewal of mayoral control. But now, the city's pass rate in reading for grades 3-8 fell from 68.8% to 42.4%, and the proficiency rate in math sunk from an incredible 81.8% to a dismal 54%.
President Obama and Secretary Duncan need to stop and think. They are heading in the wrong direction. On their present course, they will end up demoralizing teachers, closing schools that are struggling to improve, dismantling the teaching profession, destabilizing communities, and harming public education. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-race-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html)
References:

Corporate Education Reform and the Rise of State Schools
(http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/11-2-07.pdf)
Communities and Schools
(http://www.communitiesinschools.org/press-room/resource/communities-in-schools-applauds-presidents-bluepr)

ED.gov U.S Department of Education
(https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/teachers/publication_pg3.html)

Exacerbating inequality (Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 295–308)
(http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/foundations/Hursh.pdf)

Government Policies (2011)
(http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf)

No Child Left Behind vs. Blueprint for Reform http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf No Child Left Behind, Education Weekly, 2004 http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/ No Child Left Behind
(http://www.nfrw.org/documents/literacy/nclb.pdf)

Obama's 'Blueprint for Reform' in Education Goes to Congress, 2010 http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/obamas-reform-education-congress-88292582/113532.html Revising No Child Left Behind
April 16, 2010 Can Obama's blueprint fix Bush's education policies? • Volume 20, Issue 15 http://www.uk.sagepub.com/leonguerrero4e/study/materials/cqresearcher/05434_nclb.pdf Silver Chips Online http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/story/10092 The Blog (2014)
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-race-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html)

U.S Department of Education http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html

White House Express (2012)
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/27/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-blueprint-keeping-college-affordable-and-wi