Eight years after it was due for revision and months after congressional discussions to rewrite it began, No Child Left Behind has found its successor. Wednesday, the House voted 396-64 (all “no” votes were Republicans) to overhaul the mammoth legislation, first passed in 2002 as the next generation of President Lyndon Johnson’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Of course, overhauling Washington’s grip on education is desirable only if obliterating it is not an option. Absent the ideal, here’s a look at the positives — and not so positives — of the rewrite.

Many claim the new bill significantly shortens the federal government’s reach into the schoolroom, and in some ways this might be true.

For starters, the bill would end Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements, which mandate that schools demonstrate students are improving annually in math and reading or face consequences. While this is a step in the right direction, the new bill still requires that students be tested in math and reading each year from grades three through eight and once again in high school. And, since states create their own tests to prepare for the federal tests, well, that’s still a lot of tests.

Additionally, state control is supposedly increasing, as states would develop their own accountability plans — sort of. As The Daily Signal notes, “Reports suggest that about 51 percent of a state’s accountability plan must be based on quantitative measures … and the other 49 percent may be based on other more subjective measures, yet undefined.” And even in these state-created plans, states would be required to “intervene in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools; have school-level interventions in schools in which subgroups of students perform poorly; [and] intervene in schools in which fewer than two-thirds of students graduate.” This may be a bit more state driven, but it’s still an awful lot of federal regulation.

On the education czar front, The Washington Post claims the bill would mean “a significant reduction in the legal authority of the U.S. education secretary.” Wouldn’t that be heavenly! But alas, while the rewrite technically prevents the education secretary from influencing states regarding certain education policies, Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey clarifies, “It does not appear that the secretary can state specifically what a [state accountability] plan must have, but the Ed Sec could potentially veto plans that he deems inadequate until — wink, wink — he gets what he wants.”

While the positives are tepid, the shortcomings are glaring.

Absent from the bill are several key reforms, some of which we previously noted would have likely delivered true improvements in educational opportunity and quality.

For starters, the bill allows no portability for Title 1 funds, which are federal funds for low-income students. In other words, education money cannot follow the child to a public, private or parochial school that best meets his or her needs. Instead, the funds will continue to flow to the public school — failing or not. Students relegated to failing schools will receive no help from this rewrite.

Additionally, states will not be able to opt-out by redirecting federal education funds into lawful education purposes deemed most beneficial for its citizens.

Furthermore, as the Signal adds, “It appears that not a dime of spending would be cut.” This is quite ironic if, as the media would have us believe, the rewrite represents a massive curbing of federal control over education. One can only wonder what new regulations will be concocted to ensure the federal bureaucracy keeps up with all that spending.

Reflecting on the rewrite process, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, stated, “In fixing this law, we know that there were alligators lurking in every corner of the pond and the fact that we were able both in the Senate and the House to navigate that pond and deal with respect for one another … [is a] credit to the process.”

Given the product of this congressional navigation, though, it’s probably safe to say that news of the alligators’ demise may be greatly exaggerated.