Year: 2007

Where Have All the Readers Gone?

Eduflack early childhood education, Reading First, SBRR

The National Endowment for the Arts is out with a new research analysis that looks at the nation’s reading habits.  And the results are not pretty.  According to the NEA, less than a third of 13-year-olds are daily readers.  Americans ages 15-24 are spending two hours a day watching TV and seven minutes a day reading.  And reading scores for 12th graders fell sharply from 1992 to 2005.  The full report can be found at: http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html.

For years, we’ve been hearing of the Harry Potter effect, the belief that the boy wizard has dramatically increased the number of teens and pre-teens who have read for pleasure these past five years.  NEA is now saying Hogwarts is not a draw, and My Super Sweet 16 is a better attention-grabber than Harry versus Voldemort.

What’s interesting is that NEA compares TV time to pleasure reading.  Eduflack was surprised to see that 15-24 year olds are only watching TV for two hours a day.  So where’s the rest of the time going?  Video games?  Internet?  Volunteerism?  (Just kidding on the last one.)  If it is the web, how does that factor into reading?  Several unanswered questions.

Regardless, it is easy to draw the line between pleasure reading and reading ability.  When it comes to pleasure activities, just about all of us do the things we enjoy and that we can do.  If reading comes easily, we do it for pleasure.  If it is a struggle, it is a chore.  Some would rather do long division on a Saturday afternoon then be forced to read a book.  It’s sad but true.

So which comes first?  Do we become good readers by reading for pleasure, or do we read for pleasure because we are good readers?  Can one gain vocabulary and fluency and comprehension skills by spending more time with books and practicing their reading?  If adults are not reading, do we honestly think their children are going to choose to?

Reading should be a skill that permeates into just about everything else we do.  In school, reading skills will eventually impact a child’s ability to succeed in science, social studies, and even math.  In life, those reading skills are going to open pathways in high school, postsecondary education and careers. 

NEA does a good job at detailing some of the negative impacts that come from not reading.  But if we’ve learned anything from recent education communications efforts, it’s that scare tactics don’t work.  Students needs to hear what is possible from reading.  They need to hear of the doors it opens.  The jobs it offers.  The successes it results in.  Let today’s middle schooler pick a career.  I dare you to find a 21st century job that doesn’t require reading and critical thinking skills.  That comes from reading, both early and often. 

We can have the best instructional strategies and interventions in the first grade.  We can throw in the best, most effective teachers.  We can assess it and package it into a law.  It all gets lost if we aren’t supplementing it at home.  Kids mimic and copy and model their behavior after parents and family members.  Children will read if their parents make it a priority.  In our house, our 19-month-old eduson now demands two books before he will go to sleep at night.  He knows how to hold a book.  He knows one reads left to right.  He’s starting to identify the pictures.  We can now hope that he will read for pleasure (particularly since eduwife is a voracious reader).  We do it now, in part, so he is ready to read when he hits kindergarten.  And we do it now so he has it with him for a lifetime.

Virtually everyone can agree that students would benefit from additional reading instruction time during the school day.  Now we just have to remember that the learning day is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  If we want classroom reading instruction to stick, we need to reinforce it early and often at home and just about anywhere else outside the schoolhouse doors.  

Does Creativity Matter?

Eduflack early college, High School, Marketing, STEM

In recent discussions of 21st century jobs, the focus is usually on science and math skills, problem solving, multi-tasking, and the ability to work in a team.  From there, the talk moves to postsecondary education and the much-cited stat that 90% of new jobs will require some college education?

Some critics of the STEM focus, like Checker Finn, have drawn attention to the need of a classically liberal arts education, one that includes civics and history along with science and math.  The goal being a nation of thinkers, not just a nation of workers.

So where in all of this discussion does the need for creativity come into play?  Honestly, Eduflack doesn’t know if he has heard the word used as part of the needs of a 21st century workplace until this morning, when he saw the following AP article posted on edweek.org on a conference held by Washington-based Creativity Matters.  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/16/13apseattle_web.h27.html

It is an interesting concept, tying workplace success to creativity and the ability use one’s imaginations.  And it raises larger questions.  How do you teach creativity?  How do you measure it?  What do you do with a linear thinker who follows the rules, and can’t “think outside the box?”  And are we really talking creativity, or do we mean those who solve problems and try different approaches?

In Eduflack’s mind, creativity is a term associated with artists and musicians and writers and others who express emotions and thoughts.  I don’t think I’d use it to describe someone working at a Boeing plant or writing code for Microsoft.  But maybe the word is taking on new meaning and new context.

Regardless, the focus on including creativity in K-12 instruction is an important one for one central reason.  It demonstrates that the recent push to link high school education to meaningful careers has taken hold.  We no longer have to convince the American people that a high school diploma and postsecondary education are essential components to a successful career.  We now know they are non-negotiables.

Instead, we now get to focus the discussion on what constitutes a high-quality secondary education.  Whether it be STEM education, rigorous and relevant instruction, classic liberal arts, or creativity 101, the talk is on what skills can be taught now to take advantage of opportunities tomorrow.  We’re not convincing people of why, but rather leading them down the path of how.

It demonstrates that progress has been made in marketing the need and effectiveness of high school reform over the past few years.  People get it.  Even without creative thinking, we now see that a strong education leads to a good job. 

Marketing NCLB

Eduflack AFT, Marketing, NCLB, NEA, PR, Spellings

On several occasions, Eduflack has advocated for a national “marketing” effort for NCLB, seeing public support and demand for the law as one of the only means to get it reauthorized with real improvements, but without significant overhaul.  Earlier this week, a reader asked, “Wonder what I would write for a NCLB marketing campaign. Isn’t Spellings a walking sound bite?”

Anyone who has been reading the ed blogs — particularly Alexander Russo’s — knows there’s been a lot of talk about the teacher unions’ ability to scuttle any talk of NCLB reauthorization this year.  AFT and NEA deserve a lot of credit for their execution of a good communications strategy.  They were able to control the NCLB story, keeping it an inside baseball discussion and limiting to a small collection of policy wonks, education organizations, researchers, and, at times, ed bloggers.  Thus it was easy for the House and Senate decisionmakers to table the issue for a new year.  The unions planned and executed an effort  that worked.  The set a goal, the set the terms of debate, and they dominated the discussion.  That’ll get you victory on just about any stage.

Which gets us back to the question about a marketing campaign.  Are communications victories won by sound bite, or won by solid strategy?  If we go with the former, Margaret Spellings should indeed be taking a victory lap on NCLB reauthorization.  Last year, she deemed the law, like Ivory soap, 99.99% effective.  And this year, she’s had many a good turn of phrase with the education media, the general media, Jon Stewart, and countless others.  Yes, she knows her message, nows how to stick to it, and knows how to get folks to listen to it.

The NCLBers are fine when it comes to message.  The law works.  It’s effective.  We have data to prove it.  Education improvement shouldn’t be flavor of the month.  Et cetera, et cetera.  But message is one of the last pieces to the effective strategy.  And in many ways, the U.S. Department of Education has skipped over many of the needed steps, in the hopes of advancing directly to Boardwalk and Park Place.

What’s missing?  Eduflack suggests a few key components to a solid communications strategy:

* Goals — Media coverage is not a goal for a communications plan.  Goals are things like effective implementation, reauthorization, teacher recruitment, etc.  Any campaign needs clear and achievable goals.  And we must recognize we can’t be everything to everybody.  If we have multiple goals, we may need multiple strategies to get there.

* Analysis and Application of Research — No, I’m not talking the student achievement data.  Year after year, we get public opinion surveys from PDK, NEA, and others charting NCLB satisfaction.  That data should be analyzed, broken down, and used as a foundation for communications planning.  It tells you what messages work, and what don’t.  And it provides third-party validation for communications activities.

* Audience Identification and Segmentation — Who are we talking to?  For years, NCLB was a dialogue between ED and educational researchers.  It should be a discussion on Main Street USA, not in the ivory towers.  Who is important to getting the law effectively implemented?  Who is important to getting it reauthorized?  It’s parents, teachers, business leaders, and community leaders across the country.  It may be easier dealing with the AFT then rank-and-file teachers, but those individual teachers are the ones who carry the message into the classroom.

* Message Development — Some like to call these sound bites, but sound bites are canned sentences.  Messages are the themes that all should be communicating.  Whether it be the SecEd or the Secretary of Labor talking about jobs, the message needs to be on the need for NCLB, the progress to date, and the impact it will have on education and economy for decades to come.

* Relationship Development — Be it the media, influencers, organizational leaders, or the like, relationships are key.  The days when ED could exclude organizations from the debate are over.  They need all the help they can get on NCLB, and need to build the relationships that result in that help.

Then we get into the PR 101.  Media relations.  Public events.  Conferences.  New media/Internet.  Speaking opportunities.  Etc.  These are the tactical pieces that ED tends to do well.  The key is to bring them together under one umbrella, so all activities are working toward a singular, clear goal.  If the tactic doesn’t help us reach the goal, then it isn’t necessarily worth doing.  Time is precious.  We use it on those activities that make a difference.

This is just the early outline of what an NCLB marketing plan needs to focus on.  Sound bites are great, but they are a tactic, not a strategy.  Just like the law itself, an NCLB communications plan needs goals.  It needs methods of measurement.  It needs feedback loops.  It needs highly qualified professionals.  It needs accountability.

Get a half-dozen communications professionals (with education policy knowledge) in a room for a day.  Set some programmatic goals.  Embrace the Yankelovich model for changing public behavior.  And you could have a real blueprint for selling NCLB across the nation, and moving the debate from inside the ed blob to onto Main Street USA. 

NCLB is all about doing what works.  This sort of approach works.  And it may be the only way we see NCLB reauthorization before the end of 2009. 

Best of, Worst of for Student Test Data?

Eduflack AYP, DCPS, LAUSD, Math, NAEP, NCLB, STEM

Two data sets on student performance are out this week.  But what exactly does the data tell us?  And more importantly, what do we say about the data?

According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia).  We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.

And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA).  This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading.  And the math scores are really showing promise.  Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.

So what does it all tell us?  With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working.  Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student.  That speaks of promise and of possibility.

But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag.  If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up.  How are we supposed to read all this?

The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception.  Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard?  Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job?  And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?

At the end of the day, the message is simple.  Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving.  Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact.  And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country.  We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past  few decades.

Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing.  But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive.  Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t.  Who knows?  Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.


On the Road Again

Eduflack AP, AYP, early college, High School, Math, NCLB, STEM

For the past few weeks, Eduflack has spent the majority of his time well beyond the DC beltway.  Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Virginia, Arkansas, and Louisiana to name just a few.  And the coming weeks add Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, and Colorado.  One thing’s clear, discussions of education reform are occurring well beyond Capitol Hill and One DuPont.

The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed.  In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students.  The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma.  Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job.  Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content.  For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.

What didn’t I hear?  In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB.  Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept.  Maybe it is irrelevant.  Maybe it is too scary to say by name.  Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.

What does this all mean?  To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working.  For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions.  No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future.  It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed.  Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement.  NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.

And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels.  Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball.  Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance.  The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.

Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh?  I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA.  It was always a cute turn of the phrase.  But it is also 100 percent true.  The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW.  Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.

A Big Win for Us RF Zealots

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Eduflack has pulled no punches when it comes to Reading First.  I can’t say it any clearer — RF works.  The science is clear.  We know it works.  We know what it takes to get virtually every child reading at grade level.  We know what tools teachers need to engender reading success in the classroom.  The goal of RF was to take decades of proven-effective research, and put it to use in our classrooms.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  We apply the research completely and with full fidelity, and kids will read.

For much of the last year, though, RF critics have been piling on, sensing a soft-spot in the law.  We’ve dubbed the research and the program a failure because of poor execution on the implementation.  Yes, implementation has been poor.  But skepticism about moving research to practice has led many to pull the rug out from under the entire program.  Congress is looking to dramatically slash federal RF funding, and virtually everyone is parroting the phrase “RF doesn’t work.”

Over the years, we’ve expected groups like the Center for Education Policy to add to the funeral pyre of NCLB and RF.  So imagine Eduflack’s surprise when, this week, CEP comes out with a study detailing that RF is having a real, positive effect on student achievement.

Imagine that.  Despite all the implementation problems.  Despite the army of whole language researchers bashing the law from day one.  Despite the congressional inquiries and the growing chorus of doubting Thomases.  Despite all that, Reading First works.

What did CEP find?  In what was Reading First’s roughest PR year, the percentage of states deeming RF very successful rose from 33 percent last year to 40 percent this year.  Those who found it moderately effective rose from 27 to 38 percent effective.  This year, only 2 percent found the law minimally effective, and non found it not effective at all.

I challenge anyone to show me an education law that has posted such strong positive impressions across the board.  Nearly 80 percent believe the law to be very or moderately effective.  Nearly eight in 10.  That’s a presidential landslide we’ve never seen before.  That’s two and a half Hall of Fame hitters.  That’s a grade good enough to kill any classroom curve.

As an education community, we like to believe in urban legends and things that go bump in the night.  And perhaps that’s why we’ve heard mourning bells for RF for many months now. 

But there is also no shaking that we live in an ROI environment.  We all way to see return, particularly when it comes from our education dollars.  And if we are to get that sort of ROI, we need to be investing in the strategies and interventions that are proven effective.  We invest in the unproven, and our money is likely heading down a black hole.  If we pay for what works, we get results.  It really is a no-brainer.

We need to open our ears and listen to those who know best.  No, we don’t have to believe those in the U.S. Department of Education who ask for more RF moneys.  So let’s listen to CEP, and the more than 300 schools they surveyed who clearly stated RF works, and by extension needs proper funding.  Let’s listen to the International Reading Association — never a BFF of the Administration — who is similarly calling for increased funding for RF.  And let’s listen to the countless classroom educators who have raised their right hands and sworn that student achievement has increased because of scientifically based reading in the classroom.

Thanks, Jack Jennings and CEP for showing us, once again, that RF works.  Hopefully, this recent study gets us one step close to ending the debate on to use or not to use Reading First, and instead change the discussion to one of how to effectively implement RF.  We know it works.  Let’s put it to work for us.

How Not to Make Friends

Eduflack HQT, Marketing, NCLB, NEA, PR

When Eduflack used to work on Capitol Hill, he was all too knowledgeable about how organizational “score cards” worked.  Cast one vote, and the League of Conservation Voters would give you a perfect score.  Cast another vote, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses would quickly be investing in the district, working to get your opponent elected.

The one constant in all of this — scorecards were based on votes.  The only way to effectively “score” a congressman or senator was the voting record.  Yays and nays.  No points for abstentions or missed votes.  And a quick check of the Congressional Record verified any and all scores.

The National Education Association, though,  has decided to change the dynamic.  For an organization that seemed almost devoted to protecting the status quo, they are charting new territory in the lobbying front.  Earlier this week, it was revealed that NEA is now threatening poor scores on those congressmen who fail to co-sponsor NEA-supported amendments to NCLB reauthorization.  Kudos to DFER (www.dfer.org) for shining some sunlight on this situation.

Believe it or not, Eduflack hates to criticize the NEA.  Too often, we attack the organization, and some see it as an attack on teachers themselves.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I’ve said it many times — teaching is one of the toughest assignments out there.  The stakes couldn’t be higher, and we struggle to bring the profession the respect and recognition it deserves.  And at the end of the day, even the most successful curricular program will fail without a good teacher.  An effective teacher should be untouchable.

Unfortunately, the NEA often acts like a political monolith, and not like the membership organization for millions of public school teachers that it is.  By changing the game, and judging members of Congress based on their co-sponsorships, the NEA is doing a significant disservice to its rank-and-file members.  What is NEA saying?  Issues like family leave, safe workforce conditions, children’s health, equal protections, environmental safety, student loans, and other such policies important to teachers are now taking a backseat to amendments that will never see the light of day.  We don’t even know what NCLB 2.0 will look like, and already NEA is demanding tidings at its altar.

What about those members of the Appropriations Committees, who traditionally do not co-sponsor any bills or legislation?  Guess they are anti-teacher.  Same goes for the leadership, that often stays out of the amendment fray.  They must be against the NEA.  And for those members who have an education LA who failed to get the memo who may miss the deadline, looks like they are destined for the NEA hit list.

Without question, the NEA is, and should be, a major force in the development of K-12 policy and K-12 politics.  The NEA knows it has the organizational ability, the financial resources, and the grassroots power to influence elections.  I, for one, had been most appreciative of the phone banks and volunteer support NEA has provided my bosses in past elections.

NEA’s strong-arming tactics, though, send the wrong message at the wrong time.  Yes, NCLB is an important issue for the NEA.  But it shouldn’t be the only issue.  Instead of scare tactics and threats, NEA should be in the room, with sleeves rolled up, working with Miller and Kennedy and company on how to improve the law.  Those improvements don’t come from the flurry of amendments that will never make it to the floor, nor do they come from state-by-state anti-NCLB lawsuits that will never be adjudicated.  Improvement comes from negotiation.  It comes from partnership.  And it comes from a shared commitment to a common goal.

When NCLB was passed, it was heralded as a law to ensure that every child had an opportunity to succeed, both in school and in life.  Some of us still believe in that goal, and are still committed to that reality.  We should all throw our full efforts into improving opportunity and options for all students.  And it takes hard work, not score cards or lists of signatories, to get us there. 

“Dropout Factories”

Eduflack High School, higher ed, Marketing, NAEP, NCLB, STEM

From most media coverage over the past few years, we like to think of our high schools as incubators for success.  We throw around terms like rigor and relevance.  We opine that every child should go onto to college.  We push efforts to add additional AP or IB or dual enrollment programs to our schools.  And then, researchers such as those at Johns Hopkins throw a big wake-up call at our feet, reminding us of how far we still need to go.

If you missed it, Nancy Zuckerbrod at AP has the story.  http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/10/30/1_in_10_schools_are_dropout_factories?mode=PF  The summary: one in 10 high schools in the United States post a graduation rate of 60 percent or less.  That’s 17 percent of all of the high schools in the United States.

For years, these school districts have underestimated the problem.  The folks at Manhattan Institute would tell us an urban school district’s graduation rate was 55 percent.  The district would self-report 87 percent.  And we’d believe the latter.  We all want to believe statistics, and given the choice want to believe those that make us feel better about ourselves.  And there is no feel-good message in half of our students failing to earn a high school diploma.

We’d like to believe this is a problem in our urban areas.  But it isn’t limited to those communities.  These factories are just as likely in rural communities.  Why?  It’s purely economics.  We’re far more likely to find these schools in poor communities.  Dropout factories may be colorblind, but they know per-capita income.  According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, Florida and South Carolina have the greatest percentage of these schools.

Those communities providing refuge to such schools have been all abuzz about their dropout factories over the past few days.  We’re quick to defend, to refute, and to deny.  Such response is natural in crisis communications, and losing nearly half your students before graduation is indeed a crisis.  But if there were ever a time calling out for vision and for strategy, it has to be now.

In her piece, Zuckerbrod points to a number of legislative proposals to help fix the problem.  A common graduation rate formula is essential, as is stronger data collection and effective disaggregation of that data.  Then what?

We need to ask WHY these students are dropping out.  Despite popular opinion, few students leave high school because it is too hard.  To the contrary, many will leave because it is too boring or irrelevant.  

Are they leaving to go to work?  If so, what “good” job is out there for a 16-year-old high school dropout?  Some say they are dropping out because of NCLB or testing.  But I’d opine that most high school students don’t even know what NCLB is.

If we can gather data on why students leave school, we can craft the messages to get them to stay in school.  Even without the data, we know that the message must be personalized, must be relevant, and must just be common sense.  What does Eduflack mean?

* We need to start early.  Focusing on high schools and careers in ninth or 10th grade is just too late.  We need to get our kids on the right paths in middle school, get them thinking about the future, and show them the opportunities that really exist.  Middle school is the time to dream … and to plan.
* We need to better link high school to career.  Why take Algebra II?  If you want to design video games or work in a hospital, you need it.  High school courses are relevant.
* We need to take an interest.  In talking with today’s high school students about dropping out, most are staying in school because their teachers know them and take an interest in their lives.  We get rid of the factory mentality when we treat students as individuals.
* Every child has opportunity.  Education is the great equalizer.  With it, any student — regardless of socioeconomic level — can succeed.  But they need that high school diploma (and likely college degree) to do so.
* We cannot accept mediocrity.  We should be appalled by with the dropout rates reported by Manhattan Institute and others.  We simply cannot afford to lose a third of our students before the end of high school (and then another sizable group between high school and college completion).

I know, I know, I’m up on my high horse again.  But sometimes, we just have to ride that stag.  Dropout factories are simply unacceptable.  Dropping out of high school is never a viable choice.  If we want to build a new, strong economy based on high skill jobs, these are just the sort of factories that need a visit from the wrecking ball.  We need schools that prepare us for the rigors, challenges and opportunities of the future, not those that keep us from participating in that future.
  

College for Everyone?

Eduflack early college, higher ed, Marketing, Presidential campaign

As we move closer to the early 2008 primaries, the presidential candidates (particularly the Democratic ones) are starting to discuss their ideas on public education.  We still have a long way to go before we truly know what the candidates will do to improve public education and boost student achievement (funding preK is a start, railing against NCLB not so much).  But education is finally a second-tier issue in discussions, debates, and policy joustings.

And John Edwards is part of the chorus.  As of late, Edwards has started floating the idea of “College for Everyone,” his plan to provide every American with one year of free college (tuition, fees, and books), in exchange for having taken a college prep curriculum in high school, holding a part-time job in college, and generally staying out of trouble in life.

It’s a wonderful start, but, to Eduflack, the message falls grossly short.  Virtually everyone agrees that postsecondary education today is necessary for success tomorrow.  It provides the skills needed for a good job.  It provides choices.  It provides opportunity.  Be it a career certificate, two-year college degree, or four-year degree, postsecondary ed is a necessary component to contribute to the 21st century economy.

Edwards knows that.  The self-made millionaire owes his a good chunk of his success to his postsecondary education.  And as he tours the country talking about Two Americas, he has to know that education is the great equalizer between the haves and the have nots.  We reduce the gap between the two Americas through education and through the notion that success can be attained by all.

Knowing that, why does Edwards limit College for Everyone to just one year?  Are the doors of opportunity opened after taking a few 101 courses?  Of course not.  The path to success is accessed, in large part, through a degree.  That diploma is a measurement of achievement.  Employers aren’t looking for workers who have taken one year of intro courses.  They want workers with college degrees. 

When one looks at the number of organizations advocating for postsecondary education for all, one of the key messages is degree attainment.  We have built a national dialogue that students must graduate from high school, and that dropping out is not an option.  Postsecondary education is no different.  Students must use their high school years to get college ready.  And once the get to college, they need to earn their degree.  The ole sheepskin is still the common measurement of academic success.

In proposing an ambitious plan to get kids to college, Edwards is simply playing the role of tease.  The incentive should be a degree, not just a chance to hang out at the cool kids table for two semesters.  Ultimately, Edwards’ goal should be to boost the number of first-generation students graduating from high school and earning a college degree.  That’s the true road to equality and opportunity.  Anything short, an we are dangling success in front of many, only to pull it back when they reach for it. 

If we truly want to open the doors of postsecondary education to all students, we should be looking at adopting models that boost access and attainment, efforts like the Georgia Hope Scholarships.  Readiness.  Attainment.  Application.  That’s how we move students from high school through postsecondary and into career.  The goal should be a college degree for all, not a course or two of college for most.

Without such a commitment, Edwards’ College for Everyone plan may only do one thing.  That part-time job requirement may be the “path” that many students follow after they drop out of college after that first-year taste.  It’ll be one of a handful of part-time jobs they hold to help pay the rent.   

How Quickly We Forget

Eduflack HQT, national standards, NCLB, NEA, NGA, President Bush

We all remember that George H.W. Bush (the First) was supposed to an education president.  Convening an education summit at Eduflack’s alma mater, Bush brought governors, business leaders, and other influencers together to focus on how to improve American education as we headed into the 21st century.

Then there is Bush II, and his legacy of No Child Left Behind.  Like it or not, NCLB will be remembered as the federal government’s largest investment in public education to date, and praised (or demonized) for its focus on research and results-based education.

What about that president in between?  You know, that guy named Clinton.  Sure, as governor of Arkansas, he was one of the primary leaders at Bush I’s U.Va. summit.  But when we think of President Bill Clinton’s domestic policy successes, education doesn’t leap to mind.  Instead, we think of a strong economy, a balanced budget, community policing, and other such programs.

So what about President 42 and education?  Eduflack was down in Little Rock, Arkansas this week, and had to make a stop at the Clinton Presidential Library.  I’m just a sucker for presidential libraries, dating back to my father’s involvement in the development of the JFK Library in Boston.

At the Clinton Center, they’ve focused on eight or so key issues that defined the Clinton Administration … and one of those issues is education.  (In fact, the education alcove is larger than the section dedicated to the role of Vice President Al Gore in the eight-year administration.)

Clinton’s impact on education is defined broadly.  A commitment to lifetime learning.  Investments in Head Start and Healthy Start.  Goals 2000 standards.  School choice (with a big ole spotlight on a Checker Finn book).  Hiring 100,000 new teachers.  Providing 1.3 million children with a safe place after school hours.  Wiring 98 percent of our nation’s classrooms with the Internet.  Providing two years of college education to all students.  School to work.  Adult education.

I know, I know.  It reads more like a grocery list that core accomplishments.  Some are quantifiable, others can only be quantified by how many dollars were spent.  Some are narrowly defined, others broadly.  So it raises the larger question: What was the true impact of President Clinton’s education agenda?

Eduflack is treading on dangerous ground here, knowing that Eduwife worked at the U.S. Department of Education in mid-1990s and did tremendous work there, particularly in the area of parental involvement.  But we have to ask the question, why have we quickly forgotten so many of these Clinton era education initiatives?

Some of it, we just take for granted.  Of course our classrooms are wired.  We forget that when Clinton took office in 1993, there were only 170 total Web sites on the planet.  Today, some of us will visit 170 sites in the course of a work day.

Some just didn’t leave an impact.  We may have hired 100,000 new teachers during the Clinton years, but we still bemoan the great teacher shortages in our schools.  We may have sought to provide two years of college education to all high school graduates, but college costs continue to skyrocket and college readiness and college attainment numbers have flatlined.  If everyone got those two years, would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have to make the investments it is making to get kids through high school and into postsecondary education?

And some we just don’t appreciate.  Clinton supported school choice, and did so at a time when the teachers unions (those folks who helped him get elected in the first place) were strongly opposed to any change from the status quo.  We take school choice and charters for granted now, but that was a major step for Clinton to take at the time.  And it paved the way for W’s voucher program and the expansion of school choice under NCLB.

But Goals 2000 is perhaps the most interesting, and most neglected, piece of the Clinton education portfolio.  When he left office, 49 states had bought into Goals 2000.  The program stood as a real, concrete first step toward national education standards.  What had long been a third rail in education policy had been doggedly pursued by Richard Riley, Mike Cohen, and others, with tangible successes.  Without it, who knows if we would even be talking about a national standard for Algebra II (as Achieve has put in place) or comprehensive standards as discussed by NGA, CCSSO, and others.

Ultimately, though, the easiest answer to why so much has been forgotten is impact.  As we look at the Clinton agenda, we lose track of many of these initiatives because they seem to place process over results.  Yes, the issues and the dollars behind them are impressive.  But how has it improved student achievement?  How did it boost teacher quality?  How did it truly impact K-12 classrooms in schools across the nation?

Instead of answering these questions, we simply moved on.  We set aside Goals 2000 and Clinton-era school choice and such so we could focus on NCLB, Reading First, and HQT.  Out with the old, in with the new.  Instead of building on successes and momentum, the Clinton/Riley agenda was put in storage, waiting to be rediscovered by historians in the decades to come.
 
Not every president is going to be an education president.  And not every president should be.  The needs and focus of the nation change from administration to administration.  But if we are going to urge our schools to direct their attentions to long-term improvements and longitudinal evaluations, maybe we should consider the same in our federal policies.  No, we shouldn’t accept previous efforts blindly, without questioning them or looking for ways to improve them.  But with changes in administration — whether it be at the school, district, state, or federal level — shouldn’t we build on the forward progress and financial investments of our predecessors?