Story highlights President Barack Obama will sign a new bill overhauling the controversial "No Child Left Behind" law on Thursday 
 
 Critics complained the George W. Bush-era law gave too much influence to Washington in controlling education policy 
 
 Washington (CNN) The Senate cleared an overhaul of the controversial No Child Left Behind program in a bipartisan vote on Wednesday, sending the measure to President Barack Obama, who will sign it into law, the White House said. 
 
 The vote was 85-12. 
 
 Critics complained the George W. Bush-era law, which was supported by Republicans and Democrats when it was approved in 2002, gave too much influence to Washington in controlling education policy and that power should be returned to state and local school boards. 
 
 "It wasn't long after the law was passed that we realized it was full of flaws," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said shortly before the vote. 
 
 Under the new law, named the Every Student Succeeds Act, students still must be tested in reading and math, but state and local officials would have greater leeway in determining how to respond to underachieving schools. 
 
 Read More ||||| Update, Dec. 2: The House of Representatives passed the Every Student Succeeds Act by a wide margin (359-64), voting to replace No Child Left Behind. Read our coverage of the House debate here . The Senate is expected to take up the bill Dec. 8 or 9. 
 
 Given that K–12 education has occupied all of 30 to 60 seconds of discussion in the 2016 presidential debates so far it’s probably no surprise that big progress on federal education policy isn’t getting a whole lot of media attention. Like it or not, K–12 education isn’t a top-tier political issue like, say, taxes, reproductive rights, gun policy, and so forth. (No matter what some might say.) swing-state polls might say.) 
 
 So while public debates over refugee policy and military intervention in the Middle East have been sucking up all the oxygen, to replacing No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Specifically, they announced on Nov. 18 that they’d found a compromise framework that would reduce the federal role in public education without reducing it too much, and give states more room to decide which districts and schools they should focus on for improvement. Even though the framework was approved before Thanksgiving, there’s a lot yet to be done as far as clarifying Congress moved a little closer to replacing No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Specifically, they announced on Nov. 18 that they’d found a compromise framework that would reduce the federal role in public education without reducing it too much, and give states more room to decide which districts and schools they should focus on for improvement. Even though the framework was approved before Thanksgiving, there’s a lot yet to be done as far as clarifying specifically what the bill does . The debate is set to move to the House later this week. 
 
 As far as I can tell, it’s a brilliant piece of political posturing … that doesn’t seem likely to provide educational opportunity for underserved kids. 
 
 First, here’s a quick reminder of what the law replaces: under NCLB, schools where low percentages of students scored proficient on math and reading assessments receive targeted, escalating interventions to improve students’ scores. The law provides a list of interventions and mandates that states can choose from in correcting these schools’ trajectories. 
 
 Now here’s an outline of what the new framework would reportedly do: each state would develop its own accountability system to meaningfully measure, and differentiate between, schools. Each state’s accountability system must incorporate students’ math and reading achievement, though states have considerable sway in determining how much weight these two measures have. States may also incorporate other measures in determining whether schools are succeeding, such as attendance, student engagement, school climate measures, teacher engagement, participation in extracurriculars, and so on. 
 
 There’s more! Schools that finish in the bottom 5 percent of their particular system for no more than three years must be identified for improvement. Same goes for dropout factories (schools with a graduation rate below 67 percent). After schools are identified, the state must make their district do something about it, though the framework doesn’t appear to offer any details on just what. Schools with any subgroup of students performing as poorly for a state-determined number of years (1? 4? 13? 25?) as the bottom 5 percent of schools are also identified as in need of improvement. The subgroups include African-American, Hispanic, English Learner, low-income, and/or Asian-American and Pacific Islander students. 
 
 So: if a school’s students from any of these groups is performing as poorly as the bottom 5 percent of all schools in the state, the state would then have to make those schools do something new to improve their performance. 
 
 Clear? No? Let me put it in other words. A given school has to change how it's operating if the district owns no hotels on Park Place or Boardwalk and its state’s superintendent of schools lost an arm-wrestling match with the U.S. Secretary of Education on a Wednesday when the wind was blowing south and the Cubs still haven't won the World Series. If the Cubs do break their curse, the arm-wrestling then takes place over a fire pit on a day when the wind is blowing west, unless the district lands on Free Parking first, in which case the evaluation is called on account of repeated traveling violations in the paint. Standardized tests are then suspended for all schools in the state that begin with a ‘j’ or are named for former Confederate generals. As long as the shuttlecock hasn’t yet crossed the line of scrimmage. 
 
 Makes sense now, right? 
 
 What do you mean, “no?” 
 
 It's a clear system that serves the political needs of most members of Congress and protects a variety of special interest groups. It combines a thin veneer of civil rights equity with excruciating complexity and uncertain accountability. It takes a relatively simple federal accountability system, removes the teeth, and layers on a bunch of vague responsibilities for states. 
 
 What's not to understand? What's not to like? It’s a compromise in a Congress that generally can’t accomplish anything! 
 
 But seriously: . They should protest its bizarre, unclear federal accountability mandates. The new rules would require states to design accountability systems that cover much wider terrain than No Child Left Behind’s relatively simple mandates. It would put them under uncertain pressure from the Department of Education, since it leaves much up to federal interpretation. States would be stuck in a dance with whoever happens to be running the Department at any given moment. Conservatives should oppose this bill . They should protest its bizarre, unclear federal accountability mandates. The new rules would require states to design accountability systems that cover much wider terrain than No Child Left Behind’s relatively simple mandates. It would put them under uncertain pressure from the Department of Education, since it leaves much up to federal interpretation. States would be stuck in a dance with whoever happens to be running the Department at any given moment. 
 
 Progressives should also run from this bill as if it were a Ted Cruz creation. Because there’s to believe that states are up to this task. In fact, is there any reason to believe that states are willing to design accountability systems that actually require them to focus on schools with lots of underprivileged and underserved kids? Ha. If this were a debate over no reason to believe that states are up to this task. In fact, is there any reason to believe that states are willing to design accountability systems that actually require them to focus on schools with lots of underprivileged and underserved kids? Ha. If this were a debate over clean water protections voting rights protections , or most other policy issues, progressives would line up to yell about how states can’t be trusted to do the right thing without strong federal oversight. 
 
 Why are some (so-called) progressives ready to give states more flexibility around educational equity? 
 
 And look, should Congress pass a bill based on this framework, President Obama should veto it. This framework gives state and local officials huge latitude (“acres of new running room,” ) to ignore or support their underserved students. Historically, this means that states ignore these kids, particularly students of color. wrote EdWeek’s Alyson Klein ) to ignore or support their underserved students. Historically, this means that states ignore these kids, particularly students of color. 
 
 Shoot, Obama should veto it with a neon Sharpie, rip it up, and hold a press conference where he lights the shreds on fire. 
 
 “But hey!” you’re thinking, “that’s how you know it’s a good compromise. No one gets what they want! No one likes it!” Yeah, that’s probably true. But, hungry as we might be to get something — anything — done in Congress, we shouldn’t fetishize compromises. Just because a compromise satisfies various political needs (“rebuking” Arne Duncan — whatever that means — or weakening the federal role in education policy, or etc) doesn’t mean that it’s good, workable policy. ||||| The most conspicuous manifestation of that bipartisan give-and-take is what’s being highlighted by news outlets and pundits across the country: Schools will still be held accountable for student performance, but states can determine the nuances of how that will take place. They’ll have to use “college-and-career ready” standards and intervene when those expectations aren’t met, but states will get to design their own standards and intervention protocol. They’ll still be required to administer annual testing in certain grades, ensure at least 95 percent of students participate, and disaggregate data based on students’ race, income, and disability status, but they can use other factors on top of testing to assess student performance, and the details of how the testing happens and how the scores are interpreted are up to states. 
 
 The overthrow of No Child Left Behind, which has been up for reauthorization for years, is certainly cause for excitement. The George W. Bush-era law required schools to administer annual tests in certain grades in an effort to identify and elevate the achievement of underperforming youth. It was also loathed for its one-size-fits-all approach to education reform, its promotion of teaching-to-the-test, and its harsh system of sanctions. Republicans grew to despise it for how much it allowed the Department of Education to micromanage states and school districts (especially when Obama rose into office). And given how little power the Every Student Succeeds Act gives to the federal government, it may feel, particularly among those on the right, as if the nation’s schools are about to experience a major makeover—as if the next era of public education will mark a major, much-anticipated divergence from the status quo. 
 
 But in reality, schools may not see much on-the-ground change. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia already have waivers from No Child Left Behind’s “most troublesome and restrictive requirements”—flexibility granted several years ago by the Obama administration in exchange for states’ commitment to “setting their own higher, more honest standards for student success.” This means that most of the country’s students have already been learning under a system that eschewed much of No Child Left Behind’s most obvious and onerous aspects—and looks a lot like the system envisioned in Every Student Succeeds. States with waivers were essentially allowed to set their own goals for raising achievement, come up with their own strategies for turning around struggling schools, and design their own methods of measuring student progress. 
 
 “I don’t think a parent is going to notice any difference when they take their child to school next year that their school is somehow operating under a new federal law,” said Tamara Hiler, the policy advisor for education at the think tank Third Way, in an email. “The only thing they are likely to notice is that their state or district may spend time reducing the number of tests they have been layering on over the past few years”—a problem that, contrary to belief, wasn’t really a federal one to begin with. ||||| As a result, public schools have turned into pressure cookers. Teachers are pushed to improve test results. A vanishingly small amount of time is spent on art, music and sports, because they aren’t part of the testing regime. Students have become test-taking robots, sitting through as many as 20 standardized exams a year. 
 
 The Obama administration initially acted as if the miracle of 2014, with every student proficient in math and reading, would come to pass. But in 2012, when it became clear that the achievement gap wasn’t about to vanish, the Department of Education started giving waivers to states that wanted to devise their own definition of adequate yearly progress. While almost every state has gotten an official permission slip, federal bureaucrats retained the final word on whether a state’s plan would pass muster, and those waivers were conditioned on commitments to adopt administration-approved education reforms. In effect the department has been relying on waivers to rewrite No Child Left Behind. 
 
 The Every Student Succeeds Act shifts, for the first time since the Reagan years, the balance of power in education away from Washington and back to the states. That’s a welcome about-face. 
 
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
 
 No longer can the Department of Education deploy the power of the purse, as it did with “Race to the Top” challenge grants, to prod states into adopting dubious policies like using students’ standardized test scores to judge teachers or expanding the number of charter schools. Now those decisions are left to the states. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 The dread “annual yearly progress” requirement is gone, as are the escalating series of consequences inflicted on school districts that don’t measure up. States must intervene to help the weakest 5 percent of all schools, high schools that graduate fewer than 67 percent of their students on time (the national norm exceeds 80 percent) and schools where a subgroup of students “consistently underperforms.” But the states, not Washington, determine how to turn things around. That’s accountability with a needed dollop of flexibility. 
 
 While states are still required to test students annually in reading and math from third to eighth grade, and at least once in high school, they have a freer hand in designing those tests. What’s more, those standardized tests count for less in evaluating schools. At least one other measure of academic improvement, like graduation rates and, for nonnative speakers, proficiency in English, must be included. And a student performance measure, like grit or school climate, has to be part of the evaluation equation. This multipronged approach should make it easier for educators to replace some drill-and-kill memorization with more hands-on learning and critical thinking. 
 
 Civil rights groups have been tepid in their support for the legislation because they fear that some states will revert to the neglect of minority students that drove Congress to pass No Child Left Behind. They have history on their side: “Leave it to the states” was disastrous for minority students. Will this time be different? The new law maintains the old requirement that test scores be made public and that those results be disaggregated. As a result, we’ll know where the most vulnerable students are. There will be still be fights over accountability, but those will be at the state level, and advocates will need to keep up the pressure for equity. 
 
 Hope springs eternal in school reform, only to be followed by disappointment. (Announcing his education bill, Lyndon B. Johnson declared his education plan the “passport from poverty.” Clearly, that didn’t work.) Rewriting the standards of evaluation and giving states freer rein in bailing out weak schools, as this law does, is a good day’s work inside the Beltway, but it’s no guarantee that the quality of teaching and learning will change. Making those improvements will take hard work on the part of committed educators and parents. Stay tuned.
– Goodbye No Child Left Behind, hello Every Student Succeeds Act. Congress on Thursday overhauled the former into the latter, and President Obama signed it into law, reports CNN. The big talking point out of the bipartisan deal is one summed up by David Kirp in an op-ed at the New York Times: The new act "shifts, for the first time since the Reagan years, the balance of power in education away from Washington and back to the states." And "that’s a welcome about-face" in Kirp's view. He rounds up a litany of teach-to-the-test criticisms about the original Bush-era law, arguing that it's done more harm than good and was long overdue for the scrap heap. "Good riddance." This end-of-an era sentiment is common in coverage, writes Alia Wong at the Atlantic, who cautions that the reform isn't as sweeping as headlines suggest. "For all the breathless hype, the legislation seems unlikely to produce many changes that are actually visible on the ground," writes Wong. For one thing, 42 states already have waivers from the No Child Left Behind requirements deemed the most odious. And while the new act does have promising new elements, including funding to expand access to preschool, Wong thinks that "all the applause and whoops and back-patting" are a little much. The piece concludes with a link to another op-ed by Conor Williams, who calls the new act a "brilliant piece of political posturing" at the74million.org. "It takes a relatively simple federal accountability system, removes the teeth, and layers on a bunch of vague responsibilities for states," he writes. "Just because something is a compromise doesn’t mean that it will do good things for children." Click for the full posts from Kirp, Wong, or Williams.