Could Duncan's catchphrase "tight on goals, loose on means" translate into a loss of accountability under the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act? What does the blueprint get right? What does it get wrong?
Russo suggested that the "smartypants at [the] National Journal" scored low on brilliance and innovation in his "entirely unofficial but extremely handy dandy summary, which may or may not be entirely accurate but will save you a lot of time."
Sandy Kress Former Senior Advisor on Education to President George W. Bush, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP – Very disappointed. Only focusing on the worst 5 % is a mistake. This is too ‘loose’ an approach of accountability. More federal pressure to ensure disadvantaged students are being served well is needed.
Diane Ravitch Research Professor Of Education, New York University - Still too focused on ‘measure and punish,’ the prescription for lowest 5 % is worse than current NCLB tactics.
Ellen Moir Executive Director, New Teacher Center - Applauds the focus on teachers as professionals laid out in blueprint. Collecting teacher survey data on professional support and working conditions is a great idea.
Rep. John Kline R-Minn., Senior Republican, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives - Lack of specifics on the blueprint is a good thing. The gov is on a slippery slope when it comes to nationalization of standards and assessment.
Richard Rothstein Research Associate, Economic Policy Institute - Blueprint has some good thoughts but a host of problems. The economic recession and fiscally starved public schools are not compatible with the competitive funding propositions. Middle class students may be entirely left out of accountability. Best hope for blueprint at moment is that it may lead to the Secretary handing out waivers to states for non-compliance with current NCLB.
Frederick M. Hess Director of Education Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute - A lighter federal role on school intervention is a good thing, but Hess isn’t convinced it won’t turn out to be more prescriptive than the rhetoric would lead you to believe. Replacing AYP and removing burdensome--but no necessarily helpful--sanctions is a good thing.
Steve Peha President, Teaching That Makes Sense - Blueprint doesn’t present a vision for a new form of education, which is needed for ed reform. Without a new vision on form, it’s not possible to evaluate the blueprint.
Monty Neill Deputy Director, FairTest - Blueprint relies too heavily on standardized testing. Congress should largely reject it and construct a new one.
Tom Vander Ark Partner, Revolution Learning; served for seven years as Executive Director of Education for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - Blueprint gives up on promise to ensure every American family that they have access to at least one good school. Dropping tutoring and school choice for parents is disappointing. There are other good aspects to Blueprint.
Sherman Dorn University of South Florida, Professor of education history - The blueprint takes steps in the right direction. CCR is an improvement over AYP, schools can’t be measured in the same way: They face different problems. Not enough research to support turnaround prescriptions; let’s invest in research on that.
Deborah McGriff Partner, NewSchools Venture Fund, a Gates funded, pro charter school effort - blueprint keeps hope alive. Those criticizing competitive funding as an attack on equality in education miss the point: Formula funding hasn’t produced equality. Disappointed that school choice wasn’t replaced with something else.
Michael L. Lomax President and CEO, the United Negro College Fund - Blueprint is a good step forward. It’s important to remember that it’s a beginning, not a conclusion. Student-lending reform and ESEA show admin’s commitment to a comprehensive policy on education.