NCLB 2.0 is shaping up to be education reform’s version of Waiting for Godot. Those who were hopeful that something, anything might move by the end of this calendar year were severely disappointed to read yesterday’s Washington Post piece on NCLB past, present, and future.
The article itself is worth reading, and is worth commenting on. As for the latter, I don’t see how anyone can frame it better than Eduwonk — http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/11/textbook.html.
So what does the WP news coverage and Andy’s commentary really tell us?
* Major education reform requires bi-partisan support (at least at some level). Sure, there were critics from both the right and the left from the get-go. But with an advocacy team like Bush, Kennedy, Miller, McKeon, Boehner, et al, NCLB got the benefit of the doubt. We all want to believe we can put aside partisan attacks to improve our schools. 2.0 is lacking that strong bi-partisan feel.
* NCLB is going to be a political punching bag for 2008. Those who think that 2.0 will become law in an election year haven’t spent much time up on Capitol Hill. Opposition to NCLB is strong. Support for it needs to be stronger. Name me a single senator or congressman — save for George Miller or Buck McKeon — who seem willing to put their reputations on the line to advocate for reauthorization of an improved NCLB.
* NCLB has been relegated to the role of rhetorical device. Educators, researchers, and politicians use it to rail again a federal government seeking too much power. Others use it as a straw man to justify the flaws and weaknesses of our current K-12 system. Few of those still talking about it point to it as a tool of accountability and improvement for our public schools.
* NCLB is an inside baseball game. It remains a discussion point for DC policy and political folks (and what exactly does that say about us?) At testing time, you may hear some rank-and-file teachers and administrators bemoan NCLB testing and big brother, but it isn’t a day-to-day concern.
Eduflack has long said that NCLB was in desperate need of a strong marketing campaign. If you really want to sell version 2.0, you need to remind audiences — parents, teachers, administrators, business leaders — of what they are buying and what return they’ll get on their investment. No one is buying NCLB 2.0 because they look fondly on their original version. But they will buy it if we separate the impact and the goals from the brand. We don’t want NCLB, but we sure want student achievement. We don’t want NCLB, but we want our schools doing what works. We don’t want NCLB, but we want more effective teachers and more involvement from our parents.
We know what we want. Will anyone sell it to us in an election year?
The article itself is worth reading, and is worth commenting on. As for the latter, I don’t see how anyone can frame it better than Eduwonk — http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/11/textbook.html.
So what does the WP news coverage and Andy’s commentary really tell us?
* Major education reform requires bi-partisan support (at least at some level). Sure, there were critics from both the right and the left from the get-go. But with an advocacy team like Bush, Kennedy, Miller, McKeon, Boehner, et al, NCLB got the benefit of the doubt. We all want to believe we can put aside partisan attacks to improve our schools. 2.0 is lacking that strong bi-partisan feel.
* NCLB is going to be a political punching bag for 2008. Those who think that 2.0 will become law in an election year haven’t spent much time up on Capitol Hill. Opposition to NCLB is strong. Support for it needs to be stronger. Name me a single senator or congressman — save for George Miller or Buck McKeon — who seem willing to put their reputations on the line to advocate for reauthorization of an improved NCLB.
* NCLB has been relegated to the role of rhetorical device. Educators, researchers, and politicians use it to rail again a federal government seeking too much power. Others use it as a straw man to justify the flaws and weaknesses of our current K-12 system. Few of those still talking about it point to it as a tool of accountability and improvement for our public schools.
* NCLB is an inside baseball game. It remains a discussion point for DC policy and political folks (and what exactly does that say about us?) At testing time, you may hear some rank-and-file teachers and administrators bemoan NCLB testing and big brother, but it isn’t a day-to-day concern.
Eduflack has long said that NCLB was in desperate need of a strong marketing campaign. If you really want to sell version 2.0, you need to remind audiences — parents, teachers, administrators, business leaders — of what they are buying and what return they’ll get on their investment. No one is buying NCLB 2.0 because they look fondly on their original version. But they will buy it if we separate the impact and the goals from the brand. We don’t want NCLB, but we sure want student achievement. We don’t want NCLB, but we want our schools doing what works. We don’t want NCLB, but we want more effective teachers and more involvement from our parents.
We know what we want. Will anyone sell it to us in an election year?
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 
I don’t know if you have followed the new EWA Election blog…http://edelection.blogspot.com/Wonder what I would write for a NCLB marketing campaign. Isn’t Spellings a walking sound bite?
Yes, Richard Whitmire and EWA have done a good job in pushing for more education discussion in the presidential discussions. Richard, personally, has been relentless in trying to build a national drumbeat for education issues. He just needs more folks to join the band!