Now that health care reform is signed into law, the Obama administration has education reform in its sights. The White House has been throwing out ideas fast, culminating in a recent blueprint for renewing the landmark 2001 No Child Left Behind Act.

From our perspective, here's where the proposal is on target — and where its No Child reforms need fixing.

First, the good news.

The change would:

• Not brand a school as failing if only some students are struggling. Schools could distinguish between their progressing and failing students. If they have enough of the former, they don't get tagged as failing. That's fair.

• Still have third- through eighth-graders tested annually in math and reading. If schools don't test students, how will teachers know when and where to intervene?

• Have schools use student data, including test results, in evaluating teachers. Parents deserve to know whether their children's teachers can steer young minds in the right direction. If teachers habitually slow students down, the administration rightly wants them gone.

• Require failing schools to either fire their principals and teachers or close. Amen. Kids shouldn't get stuck in failing schools.

• Allow a school to use students' progress to determine whether it is succeeding. Schools deserve some acknowledgement when they take a student that's, say, three grades behind in reading and moves him forward two grades in one year.

Now, for the bad news.

The change would:

• End No Child's adequate yearly progress measurement. By ending AYP, which requires schools to show progress, campuses could drift back into mediocrity, which is what led Congress to create No Child Left Behind in the first place. Do we really want to return to those days?

• No longer require all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Many suburban students are proficient. Does the administration believe kids in urban districts aren't capable of meeting this goal, too?

• Require schools to show their students are on track for college or a good job. Not a bad idea in principle, but how can schools know the answers to these vital questions if they aren't asked to show adequate progress? And what would college- and career-ready mean in the new law? Vagueness will get students nowhere.

• Focus only on failing schools. The administration would have Washington zero in on failing schools but let states deal with mediocre ones. That's a big risk, since some states have poor records dealing with ho-hum schools.

• Stop letting students in failing schools transfer to another public school. Why should students stuck in the 13,000 schools that No Child considers in need of improvement not have the option to leave?

And the bottom line?

In sum, the administration is retaining some elements that made No Child a game-changer. But it also would end some that are crucial to helping kids progress. If they aren't restored, this proposal, on balance, could end up harming more students than it helps.