Month: January 2008

NCLB: The Great Debate?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign, Reading First

We’re seven months from the presidential primaries.  We’re 16 months from the 2008 presidential election.  So it only makes sense that last night was the “first” Democratic presidential debate.  (Those other three or four were just pre-season, I suppose).  Last night’s questions came in from “regular folks” through YouTube.  And if you believe Ed in ’08’s numbers, Of the nearly 3,000 questions that were submitted, 306 of them were about education. 


During the two-hour debate, one education-focused question was actually raised.  The loaded softball in question — “Would you scrap or revise the No Child Left Behind program?”  It’s a wonder CNN found time for it, what with the snowman concerned about global warming and all.


Eduflack will forget, for a second, that the questioner didn’t leave the candidates the option to stand up for the law, particularly since half the folks on the stage voted FOR it back in 2002.  And we’ll try to ignore the fact that only three candidates were able to answer the question, and that the one that defended the law (Chris Dodd) wasn’t actually asked to chime in (and was almost prevented from answering).


After listening to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson take up most of the “education time,” I must say I am truly disenchanted by the governor from the Land of Enchantment.  Either he doesn’t understand NCLB or he is distorting it for his own purposes.  Either way, it demonstrates how far Spellings & Co. need to go to effectively market and promote the federal education law.  ED is losing the PR battle on NCLB, and they continue to let the law’s critics define the terms of debate.  Last night was the perfect example. 

So how exactly did Richardson answer the NCLB question?  He raised four key points.  First, he attacked NCLB for taking funding away from low-performing districts and schools.  What?  If anything, NCLB — through SES, Reading First, and other initiatives — is doing the opposite.  It is putting additional funding in those schools that need it the most.  But Richardson seems to have bought into the status quo’s red herring that NCLB is a punitive tool only.

Second, he calls for a minimum teacher salary of $40,000.  I won’t quibble with him on this.  Effective teachers should be far better paid than they are now.  But with all of the crowing that NCLB has stripped local control from what was perceived as a local issue, is he honestly suggesting the federal government should get involved in setting teacher pay scales for school districts?  How does that work with current collective bargaining agreements?

Third, he said we need to focus on science and math and do what is needed to unlock the minds of those students who are struggling in those subjects.  Hear, hear!  NCLB does that, and talk of NCLB 2.0 calls for greater investment and attention to STEM issues.  I would ask though, governor, how you propose to identify the children whose minds are in need of unlocking without the strong assessments called for under NCLB?  We need strong, research-based assessments to ensure all students are learning the skills they need to succeed after they leave the schoolhouse doors.

And the final point?  This closer that is supposed to sum up his position and make the strongest case possible?  We need more music, dancing, and sculpture classes in our schools.  Pardon me as I shake the bewilderment from my head.  On a daily basis, we have members of Congress seeking to slash spending for reading — a non-negotiable educational building block — and the good governor wants to make sure we’re teaching Pottery Wheel 101?

If we’re going to debate education, and I mean truly debate education, let’s focus on the real issues of NCLB.  Let’s hear where the candidates stand on research-based instruction.  On the need for effective teaching.  On the benefits of continuous assessment and instructional improvement.  On data collection.  On content-rich professional development.  And on the need for measurable, demonstrable student achievement, the sort of achievement that ensures every child has the chance to succeed in school and in life.  That would be a debate I’d pay to see, and that would be one that would actually educate the voters and the Congress on educational priorities.

There was one bright spot to the sad two minutes devoted to education last night.  As Senators Clinton and Obama looked the other way on the question, Chris Dodd bravely stated, “Accountability is very important.”  Couldn’t have said it any better, Senator.  I just hope your colleagues on the rostrum heard you.
 

Opting Out, TIMSS Style

Eduflack AP, early college, higher ed, NCLB, President Bush, Spellings, Students

We need to better prepare our students to compete on the world economy.  Such is the driving mantra behind current pushes to improve our high schools and strengthen the links between secondary and postsecondary education.  Our students need the skills to succeed, they need the math, science, and problem-solving skills to hold their own against other students around the world.  They need the skills to gain good jobs in the United States.  And they need strong math and science skills to ensure such jobs remain here in the United States.  Math and science skills are necessary to keeping our economy strong and our future generations employed.  All strong rhetoric, all believed by Main Street USA, and all pretty damned true.

That’s why Eduflack was a little disappointed to read a piece by Sarah D. Sparks in Education Daily a little more than a week ago, which reported that the United States will not participate in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, for physics and calculus.

Eduflack waited to comment on this development to see how those who truly understand the policy implications reacted.  And the response was as surprising as the announcement — deafening silence.

Why is the U.S. Department opting out of TIMSS?  Two simple reasons.  The first is cost.  The second is lack of students.  What is the United States lacking?  Apparently, we don’t have a few million dollars to conduct the study and we don’t have the 16,000 students needed to comprise an effective sample size.

Yes, such reasoning seems quite questionable, particularly with everything we know about NCLB funding, the demand for greater assessments, and the rapid increase in science and math instruction thanks to programs like STEM, early colleges, and similar high school reforms.

At a time when the international team is looking to go head-to-head with the United States, we choose to sit on the bench.  At a time when we tell our kids that they need to gain math and science skills to succeed in both college and career, we send then to the showers before they even have a chance to pitch the first inning.  And at a time when we should be doing all we can to post impressive stats and demonstrate we are the world leaders, instead we choose to hide behind the stats on the back of our bubblegum cards, those numbers that defined us in years past.

But what, exactly, does this announcement say about us?  Instead of dwelling on what we cannot do or where we see the failings, Eduflack offers up some talking points for Secretary Spellings on this important topic.

* Ensuring that our high school students are truly prepared to compete in the global economy must become a fiscal priority for us.  We are, rightfully so, pouring billions and billions into elementary- and middle-school improvements and testing (including TIMSS for fourth and eighth graders), but the current federal commitment to high schools is but a fraction.  We need to educate and train our students, particularly those in high school, in math and science, and we need to effectively assess those skills.
* We need to applaud those school districts that are taking the responsibility to prepare all students for the future.  Early colleges and dual-enrollment offerings.  AP and IB programs.  STEM education.  All of these are important steps our schools, districts, and states are taking to ready our kids for the challenges and opportunities of the future.
* The United States stands as the true home for innovation.  And we’re willing to make the investment to keep it that way.  Our future is too important not to equip our students with the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to achieve, both in school and in life.

Yes, TIMSS is merely one measure of our effectiveness.  It is a tool, like other assessments, to ensure we are on the right track.  And it is one of the few we have to effectively measure our abilities versus our trading partners and our economic competitors around the globe.  Not participating in the study reads like we are worried about our ability to compete and our ability to excel.  If we aren’t ready for the big leagues, then we need to get back into training and prepare ourselves for true competition.  You can’t win the big game of life if you’re unwilling to step onto the field. 


  

Jumpstarting a Dialogue?

Eduflack DCPS, Fenty, Green Dot, LAUSD, NCLB, PR

We often hear about action for action’s sake, but how often do we act for the benefit of rhetoric?  Apparently, that’s what LA Mayor Villariagosa is saying regarding his attempt to take over LAUSD.  In today’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-lausd19may19,1,3072284.story?coll=la-news-learning&ctrack=3&cset=true) the LA Mayor talks about dropping his bid for takeover, rewriting history by saying his intent was to “provide a framework for dialogue.”

I’ll be the first to say that dialogue is good.  But I am a firm believer that you use rhetoric to advance action.  Pick the right words, the right spokespeople, and understand the right audiences, and you can drive the right action.  Nowhere is that more true than in education reform.  Our goal should not be talk.  Our goal should be to change public behavior (and improve student achievement) through effective communication.

I respect Villariagosa’s attempt to save face in what was a difficult situation.  But when we see the effectiveness of Bloomberg in NYC, or Fenty’s undeterred effort to take over DCPS, do we honestly think either the NYC or DC Mayors would be happy knowing that they had simply provided a “framework for dialogue?”  Of course not.

In the end of the day, Villariagosa forgot an important key to reform communications — build a strong cadre of supporters and advocates.  At times, it appeared he was fighting a one-man fight.  Fighting the school board.  Fighting the union.  Fighting just about anyone who stood for the status quo.  And at the end of the day, he paid the price.  A loss in court, a loss of stakeholder support, and ultimately a loss of public trust.


Lost in the discussion is the fact that LAUSD has some strong reforms they can boast of, particularly the recent successes of Green Dot Schools.  There, they have a reform focused on students and teachers, focused on academic success, and focused on strong communications and ally building in the community.  And its successes have helped it weather public rhetorical opposition from the unions and other sources.


The aborted takeover of LAUSD was a defeat for Villariagosa, no matter how he tries to publicly spin it.  But it teaches an important lesson to many of today’s education reformers.  Reform can’t be personal.  This isn’t about what a particular mayor, a particular superintendent, a particular corporate leader, or a particular researcher want.  As we have seen from LAUSD and from the Reading First and NCLB hearings, personalities can be torn down.  Individual personalities are easy targets.  Find a hole in their rhetoric, their background, or their public persona, and you can turn back their ideas. 

For such reforms to be truly successful, they need to focus on those who are being helped, those who are ultimately benefiting.  Instead of hearing what Villariagosa would do if he won and how he would change the school board and who he would hire, we should have been hearing about that child in Southcentral LA who would finally have that chance to succeed under a streamlined system.  Let’s hear how reform would impact the teachers and the students, not how it would bolster the power of the mayor.

Yes, LA can teach many of our urban districts a great deal.  Hopefully, Mayor Fenty is listening as he prepares to wage a public battle to get his school takeover plan through Congress.  Let’s hear how it will benefit DC schoolchildren and educators, and not how it will enhance the Mayor’s legacybuilding efforts.  In districts like DCPS and LAUSD, simply initiating a dialogue is not enough.  Communication without reform is simply talking to maintain the status quo.  Should that really be a goal … or an achievement to celebrate?

“I Want More NAEP TUDA”

Eduflack AYP, NAEP, NCLB

For those of you looking for more information on NAEP TUDA, particularly those who want to know whether Eduflack’s interpretation is insightful genius or full of it (I’m putting my money on insightful), Associate Commissioner Peggy Carr is going to be taking public questions on the study. 

I’m told questions can be sent to tuda2007questions@ed.gov, and should be submitted until noon Monday.  Answers to all those deep, dark questions should be posted Nov. 20 at 3 p.m. at <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/2007tudachat.asp.

Here’s”>nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/2007tudachat.asp.

Here’s your chance to hear directly from those responsible for the data collection.  Fire those questions away on impact, long-term implications, and lessons learned.


 

It Takes More Than a Village …

Eduflack DCPS, Fenty, NCLB, PR, SBRR

I’m the first to admit it.  Eduflack is results-focused.  When it comes to communications, does it really matter what you say or how you say it if it doesn’t contribute to meeting your overall strategic goals?  And when it comes to education reform, do the best of ideas matter if they don’t improve student achievement?  Good intentions only get you so far.  We measure results, effectiveness, and success.

But sometimes, we do need to take a step back.  And Rick Hess reminded us of that earlier this week in his commentary piece in The Washington Post.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101927.html.  For those who missed it, Hess looked at the early days of the Michelle Rhee administration at DC Public Schools, giving her strong marks for both intent and results.

Hess really grabs the issue of education reform by the throat with his opening paragraph:

One bit of the conventional wisdom hampering school reformers is the belief that if superintendents taking over troubled districts just concentrate on curriculum, instruction and “best practices,” everything else will sort itself out. This myth has been promoted by education professors and others who think large-scale reform entails simply figuring out what a good classroom looks like and then replicating it as necessary.  

I’m a suscriber to such conventional wisdom, at least as it relates to students.  Give a teacher a research-proven curriculum and an understanding and appreciation of best practices, and you can get students to achieve.  Apply what we know works — what we know is effective in classrooms like ours — and virtually every student in the class has the opportunity to succeed.

Of course, there are classrooms and then there are central offices.  Hess reminds us of that.  Before a superintendent can even think about how to get the evidence-based curriculum, the effective teachers, and the best practices into the classroom, he or she must deal with those management components we often forget about.  Personnel and textbook distribution and bureaucracy and broken systems and a faculty that has lost faith in any missive or idea coming from the central office.

School districts like DCPS — those districts that are in real need of reform and improvement — are not just one step away from the promised land.  One can’t just drop in a new SBRR curriculum or an effective teacher provision and assume that AYP will be met by all from that point forward.  These schools are in trouble, and are in need of wholesale improvement and comprehensive reform.  That’s why the keys are being turned over to a reformer in the first place.

At the end of the day, Hess is saying that the achievement we seek can’t be truly gained until we undergo a culture change.  And nothing could be more true.  Some may chide Rhee or Mayor Fenty for what are seen as PR stunts.  And, yes, some of them are.  But what Rhee and her team seem to realize is that they need to change the way DCPS thinks and acts if they are to deliver the student achievement gains we all seek and expect.

Yes, Rhee’s success is going to be based on how well DC’s students achieve.  Yes, we expect test scores to increase in short order.  But we also can’t expect all of DC’s teachers and parents to follow Rhee into battle if they don’t have textbooks, don’t get paychecks on time, and have lost confidence in the administration.  Effective reform requires more than just the village.  Both Rhee and Hess recognize that.

 

Setting a Reading Example

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First

Effective communications is not only about words, it is about actions and behaviors.  We have all heard that a picture is worth a thousand words.  And it is particularly true with young people.  Children mimic adults.  They watch us closely and try do what we do — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

This is particularly true in teaching children to read.  Parents of young children are taught to expose their youngsters to books.  Show them how to hold a book.  Teach them one reads left to right, and front to back.  And most importantly, let them see you read — a book, a magazine, a newspaper anything.

In a field where modeling promising practices is king, this seems like a no-brainer.  Non-verbal communications is a key component in teaching our children.

That’s why it was so discouraging to see the latest AP-Ipsos poll that found one in four adults read no books at all in the past year.  And on the whole, the average American read four books a year.  Startling — 25 percent of adults couldn’t bother to read one piece of chick lit, one Harry Potter, or entry from the NY Times best seller list.

Is it any wonder that 40 percent of fourth graders can’t read at grade level?  Of those who struggle to master basic reading skills, how many do you think see parents or siblings or neighbors reading at home?  Do we honestly think there is no correlation between the absence of reading in adults and the struggles of reading in kids?

Like it or not, parents are the first, last, and most impactful teacher a child ever has.  Because of this, we have an obligation to ensure all children have access to the education and opportunity needed to succeed in this 21st century economy.  And one can’t get on that path without an ability to read.

I know, I’m up on the Eduflack soapbox.  And it can get lonely up here.  But it is just too important not to scream into the wind on this topic yet again.  I’ll yield the microphone if you pick up a book.  Young eyes are on us all.

Waiting for NCLB

Eduflack AYP, HQT, Marketing, NCLB

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?

Reading Between the NCLB Lines

Eduflack AP, Marketing, NCLB, NGA, PR, SBRR

As most in the education reform world know by now, yesterday House Education Committee Chairman George Miller spoke on his thoughts about NCLB.  The highlights — NCLB will be reauthorized, NCLB will be revised and improved, and Miller has heard the “teaching to the test” critics.  The Washington Post has the full story — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html?hpid=sec-education

All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date.  The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so.  Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law.  If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.

The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words.  While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement.  He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.

Why is this so interesting to Eduflack?  Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools.  Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade.  We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way.  For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments. 

But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach.  Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools.  How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests?  How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later?  These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.

Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words.  As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation.  That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.

Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements.  Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom.  With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it. 

College Costs How Much?

Eduflack College Board, higher ed, Students

It’s that time of year again.  Yesterday, the College Board released its annual Cost of College report.  And like the years before it, the numbers aren’t pretty.  Tuition and fees at public four-year colleges are up 6.6 percent from last year.  At private colleges, there is a 5.5 percent increase.

At face value, that doesn’t seem too bad.  But let’s take a look at increases over the past decade.  For those going to private schools, tuition and fees have increased 72 percent over the last 10 years.  And in our public institutions, those schools designed to provide ALL students with a postsecondary education, costs have increased nearly 100 percent since 1997.  USA Today has the story — http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-22-college-price_N.htm?csp=34.

Only the price of a gallon of gasoline has experienced greater inflation that a college degree.  Even healthcare costs haven’t increased, over the same time period, like college tuition prices.

What message does this send, particularly at a time when we preach that very student needs a postsecondary education?  Is that college diploma 100 percent more valuable?  Are starting salaries out of college 72 percent higher today than they were in 1997?  Are we learning more in college today?  Do we have greater access to full professors?  Are classes smaller?  Are offerings more specialized and relevant?

Of course, the answer to all of these is no.  Prices are rising because they can rise.  College endowments are at an all-time high; sticker price doesn’t haven’t to exceed inflation.  More student loan money is available today than ever before.  But we don’t need every student to max out to go to college.  We do it because it is expected.  We know college tuition will exceed inflation every year, and we have come to accept it.

If we are really going to sell today’s high school students on the notion that a postsecondary education is necessary for career and life success (and the data shows that it is), we need to also show that quality postsecondary education can be found at an affordable price.  Not everyone needs a $160K college diploma to secure a good job.  Not everyone needs to borrow six figures in student loans to get a meaningful college degree.

Eduflack looks at his 18-month-old son, and often wonders what college is in his future.  Eduwife is a proud grad of Stanford University (BA and MA) and UPenn (Ed.D.).  At this rate, Eduflack is looking at starting tuition and fees for Stanford’s freshmen of 2024 coming in at nearly $125,000 a year.  It’s never too early to teach Eduson football or golf. 





 

Making “Public” a Dirty Word?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR

For decades, America used to crow about its public school system.  We were the model that other nations aspired to.  From kindergarten through college graduation, public schools were meant to stand as a symbol of equal education and opportunity.

Today, however, the criticism over public schools is growing louder and louder.  The success of charter schools has further highlighted the flaws in some urban districts.  Vouchers are now allowing parents to opt out of the public school system in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Washington DC, and throughout Florida.  And NCLB has more parents and communities scrutinizing those public schools that fail to make AYP and fail to provide a high-quality, effective education to all.

So it is no surprise it has come to this.  According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “public” is now a dirty word when talking about our local schools.  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07192/800808-298.stm  Pittsburgh Public Schools is dropping “public” from its name, in an attempt to “brighten and strengthen” its image.

Eduflack is all for school districts doing what is necessary, rhetorically, to improve their image.  Schools need to instill confidence in the teachers, students, and families that are part of the school community.  We need to believe in the educators and leaders who head our schools.  And we need to trust our children are getting the high-quality, effective education that our taxpayer dollars are funding.

Does anyone believe that dropping the “public” improves the quality of education, or even the perception of the quality of education?  Does the franchise-ination of school names, as Pittsburgh Public Schools proposes, really do anything to improve the schools?  Of course not.

Yes, schools should simplify the message and making sure their goals are clear to every and any stakeholder audience.  That’s the only way you can successfully communicate reform.  And I’m all for Pittsburgh’s new tagline — “Excellence for all.”  Every student, including those in Pittsburgh, deserve excellent education and should be expected to demonstrate proficiency and excellence.

But you need more than a new tagline to improve your schools.  Such rhetorical devices are useless if one is not adopting the reforms and improvements necessary to deliver on the promise.  If Pittsburgh is promising excellence for all, it better be coming to the classroom with more than a tagline, a new logo, and a “streamlined” name for the school district.  It better bring the instruction, the interventions, the measurement, and methods for improvement that are needed for any school district to truly excel.

Without such content commitments, this is nothing more than empty rhetoric.  I appreciate that Pittsburgh officials believe that “public” has negative connotations with some.  Based on the performance of many public schools over the past decade, it should.  The most effective way to reverse that image is not with a new coat of paint or a new neon sign, though.  The most effective way to communicate “public” schools in a positive way is to show real, lasting, meaningful student achievement.  For our nation to succeed, we need to be proud of our public schools, not ashamed of them.