The blueprint calls on states to adopt higher standards. And by that, he means the new National Standards, which came out earlier this year. Forty-eight states have already embraced them. (Hey Texas and Alaska: C'mon! We already know you're "unique." You don't need to prove it at every opportunity.) To me, it makes sense to have a common set of standards. In fact, one of the biggest shortcomings of NCLB was that many states, left to write their own standards and the tests that measured them, actually lowered their standards to avoid penalties. 

States will be "encouraged" to use an assessment system that measures student growth, as opposed to absolute level. This is new. Under current law, a high needs school gets penalized for having high needs students, no matter how much those students improve. One of the characteristics of a high needs school is high student mobility. If low performing students are constantly coming and going, a school's overall achievement level will be always be low. Under this blueprint, schools will be assessed on the degree to which they affect individual student growth.

There will be four categories of schools. Now there's only two: good and bad. Under this new plan, there will be "Reward Schools," rewarded with money because they showed amazing student growth, successfully turned themselves around or significantly closed their achievement gap; "Challenge Schools," the bottom five percent in terms of improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps; "Warning Category Schools," schools that are in danger of becoming the bottom five percent; and the "Vast Majority," schools that are neither amazingly successful, nor appallingly bad. These schools will be mostly left alone to do their work in regards to this new plan. I like this a lot. Under NCLB, every school was facing an impending crises, whether it was great or dysfunctional, since by 2014 every child in the country was to be proficient in reading and math, a goal that even George Will called "loopy idealism of preposterous expectations." I teach in an adequate school, and so do you, probably, and it will be nice to not have the feds breathing down my back so that I can just focus on teaching.

On the other hand, maybe you don't teach in an adequate school. If your school makes it into the bottom five percent, the picture changes dramatically. The Blueprint designates a significant amount of money to help states and districts improve low-performing schools. There's four different ways for them to accomplish this: transformation (firing the principal and implementing a new instructional model) turnaround (firing the principal and half the teachers, implementing a new approach and extending the learning time) restart (firing the principal and turning the school into a charter school) or simply closing the school altogether. (which also implies firing the principal) Although none of these options sound pleasant, especially if you're a principal, the thing I like about this plan is that there is money available for states and districts to build capacity for high needs schools, including equitably distributing tax dollars and effective teachers. Under the current plan, the accountability rests mostly on individual schools; this plan holds states and districts accountable. Although both teacher unions have spoken out against this provision, I see this as an improvement; I could foresee being asked by my district to work in a low-performing school without putting my career in jeopardy. We've all seen what happened in Rhode Island under the current "turnaround model."

The Blueprint encourages states to develop performance-based teacher and principal evaluation systems. Although I'll always be leery of using student scores to evaluate teacher performance, what I really dislike about this provision is that it will start immediately, while the assessment systems I described earlier are still in the works. In other words, Obama's plan assesses teachers, using an assessment system that he wants to replace. It's like accusing someone of being late, using a watch that you know doesn't work.

The Blueprint calls for an increased funding for English Learner Education, as well as incentives for states to develop ways to share successful strategies. Another good call. ELLs are a growing segment in our schools, and there are vastly different ways to handle the challenges they bring.

The Blueprint includes grants for states and districts to improve the teaching of subjects other than reading and math. Wow. Imagine that. The federal government will actually encourage us to provide a well-rounded education. Of course, the tests will still focus on core subjects, but hey; it's something!

States will be encouraged to provide services that promote healthy students and turn schools into community learning centers. This addresses a chronic problem in many high needs areas; students are frequently in poor health and their families have limited resources to support them in schools.

Race to the Top is also featured prominently in the blueprint, as are charter schools, which are encouraged with financial incentives. I don't care for either of these. Race to the Top seems unfair to me and charter schools drain students and resources from surrounding schools. But the Obama administration apparently doesn't share my opinion.

So yeah; I kinda like Obama's Blueprint for Reform. It's not perfect, it's not terrible and it's definitely bold.

It's not half bad.