Is it possible to say all of the right things, but still fail in effectively communicating? It may sound hard, but it is quite easy. Don’t believe Eduflack? Just check out President Bush’s remarks to the 2007 Presidential Scholars yesterday.
The President picked a good venue for his remarks — a room full of high-achieving high school students. He brought with him ED Secretary Spellings, along with Republican members of Congress key to NCLB reauthorization. And he had a clear messaging platform — NCLB’s goals, what NCLB has achieved to date, and vision for NCLB 2.0.
And that messaging was strong.
* NCLB is bipartisan.
* “The federal government should expect results in return for the money it spends.”
* “The only way to determine whether a child is reading at grade level is to have accountability in our school systems.”
* “We’re making good progress.”
* “Our ability to compete in the 21st century depends upon educating children”
* “If a child needs extra help, there’s going to be money available to help that child.”
* “Strengthen math and science”
* “Extra funding for under-performing schools.”
* “We believe in local control of schools, you reform them, you fix them.”
Bush addressed his remarks to the students, their parents, and their teachers. He spoke of believing in students, supporting teachers, and improving our schools. The President was passionate about an issue he cared about (particularly when talking about the impact of SBRR on reading scores). And that’s where he should have stopped.
A broad audience. A relatively light and easy event. The President should have called it a day, and walked off the mound leaving the crowd with the broad rhetorical strokes that define the benefits of NCLB. Had he done so, it would have been a win. A strong “A” from the teachers in the crowd.
Instead, he kept speaking. Using his bully pulpit, he decided to further define NCLB in terms of school choice and vouchers. Important issues, yes. Volatile components of NCLB, for sure. But completely inappropriate for the audience, the venue, or the ultimate end game. Yes, it is important for the President to appease a key audience (his conservative base), particularly as Republicans are quickly jumping off the NCLB ship. But you need to address such concerns directly with the audience that holds them. By spending a third of his time focused on issues that appeal to a small, but vocal, segment of the education universe, he muddled his message and chipped away at his clear framing of the value of NCLB.
And the result of the tip of the hat to his conservative base? Nil. The criticisms of big government and the federalization of education still rang out in The Washington Post’s coverage of it. A golden opportunity to focus on the positive impact and long-term gains as a result of NCLB, yet the President still only scores the gentleman’s “C” for execution.
Month: January 2008
Speaking Locally, Thinking Nationally
To put it mildly, it’s no secret that state legislatures and local governments have been resistant to NCLB, particularly its accountability provisions. The reason is fairly simple. K-12 education has long been perceived as a local issue. Local school boards make curricular decisions, state legislatures set funding priorities, and all are focused on the educational needs at the very local of levels.
It’s only been in recent years that the federal role in K-12 has gained a spotlight. NCLB moved the feds from the role of funder to the role of active participant. Sure, the feds provide less than 10% of the money spent on education in this country. But it carries a big stick. NCLB provides a lot of new money if you’re willing to play ball, and poses the threat of pulling funding if you don’t play by the rules.
So yesterday’s vote at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ annual conference should come as no surprise. NCSL members rejected national education standards, even voluntary ones. Education Week has the story, as disappointing as it is. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/06/45ncsl_web.h26.html
We all know the great Tip O’Neill adage that all politics is local. That was surely the case for NCSL. In carefully chosen language, they embraced the notion of “rigorous state standards” and “individual state refinement of standards.” This should be no surprise. When you are a member of a state legislature, you want to keep the power in your hands. You want to be the one to write the standards, fund the standards, and evaluate the standards. It’s your best chance to control the outcomes, particularly if you are to be held accountable by your constituency.
No, Eduflack isn’t going to fault NCSL for defending its turf and speaking strongly on a key issue. For that they should be applauded. But I will take issue with, yet again, the attack on NCLB as a justification for the such a policy stance. So I issue a rhetorical challenge to all, stand up for what you believe in, without needing to tear down or tear into NCLB. It’s a great communications bogeyman, sure, but NCLB is not responsible for all that ills our schools, despite the urban legend.
Yes, we all know there is room for improvement in NCLB. We all know that many states have felt the financial sting of meeting the accountability standards in the law, with some seeing it as an unfunded mandate. But you also can’t ignore that Reading First has given the states more than $5 billion in additional funding to date to implement SBRR. And a quarter of that — more than $1 billion — was intended for stronger, more relevant teacher professional development.
Like it or not, local control is quickly intersecting with national expectations. Blame the “world is flat” economy, blame NAFTA, blame the little that has been done since we discovered we were a “Nation at Risk.” If we expect our kids to thrive once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time, living up to the expectations and standards of the local community is no longer enough.
Today’s students are being asked to compete with students across the state, across the nation, and around the world. Employers are looking for core competencies in all of their corporate locations. They expect employees in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, Hartford, and even Bangalore to bring the same skills and the same abilities. Our institutions of higher education are usually screening applicants with one master rubric. National standards (even the voluntary ones) are coming.
My K-12 years were spent in public schools in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and West Virginia. Did I notice the differences? You bet. Did I feel one state’s education was stronger than another’s? Of course.
More and more, we are becoming a transient society. Unlike generations past (even mine), it is now a rarity for a student to finish high school with the same cohort of students he or she started kindergarten with. A little sad, sure, but it is the reality. Whether NCLB is on the books or not, national education standards are an important tool in our changing education system and our evolving economy. They are the great equalizer, ensuring that a public education is worth the same in Alabama as it is in Oregon, the same in Nevada as it is in New York.
If we want a public education to mean something again, we need to restore its value and we need to quantify its impact. The era where one could say, “well it is good enough for <insert state here>” is over. This should be the new frontier, where we demonstrate that students in our state are outperforming those in our neighboring states. The only way that works is when we measure with the same ruler. Groups like NCSL should be a key part of the dialogue to choose the right national ruler; they shouldn’t be hiding it from those who really need a good measure.
It’s only been in recent years that the federal role in K-12 has gained a spotlight. NCLB moved the feds from the role of funder to the role of active participant. Sure, the feds provide less than 10% of the money spent on education in this country. But it carries a big stick. NCLB provides a lot of new money if you’re willing to play ball, and poses the threat of pulling funding if you don’t play by the rules.
So yesterday’s vote at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ annual conference should come as no surprise. NCSL members rejected national education standards, even voluntary ones. Education Week has the story, as disappointing as it is. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/06/45ncsl_web.h26.html
We all know the great Tip O’Neill adage that all politics is local. That was surely the case for NCSL. In carefully chosen language, they embraced the notion of “rigorous state standards” and “individual state refinement of standards.” This should be no surprise. When you are a member of a state legislature, you want to keep the power in your hands. You want to be the one to write the standards, fund the standards, and evaluate the standards. It’s your best chance to control the outcomes, particularly if you are to be held accountable by your constituency.
No, Eduflack isn’t going to fault NCSL for defending its turf and speaking strongly on a key issue. For that they should be applauded. But I will take issue with, yet again, the attack on NCLB as a justification for the such a policy stance. So I issue a rhetorical challenge to all, stand up for what you believe in, without needing to tear down or tear into NCLB. It’s a great communications bogeyman, sure, but NCLB is not responsible for all that ills our schools, despite the urban legend.
Yes, we all know there is room for improvement in NCLB. We all know that many states have felt the financial sting of meeting the accountability standards in the law, with some seeing it as an unfunded mandate. But you also can’t ignore that Reading First has given the states more than $5 billion in additional funding to date to implement SBRR. And a quarter of that — more than $1 billion — was intended for stronger, more relevant teacher professional development.
Like it or not, local control is quickly intersecting with national expectations. Blame the “world is flat” economy, blame NAFTA, blame the little that has been done since we discovered we were a “Nation at Risk.” If we expect our kids to thrive once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time, living up to the expectations and standards of the local community is no longer enough.
Today’s students are being asked to compete with students across the state, across the nation, and around the world. Employers are looking for core competencies in all of their corporate locations. They expect employees in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, Hartford, and even Bangalore to bring the same skills and the same abilities. Our institutions of higher education are usually screening applicants with one master rubric. National standards (even the voluntary ones) are coming.
My K-12 years were spent in public schools in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and West Virginia. Did I notice the differences? You bet. Did I feel one state’s education was stronger than another’s? Of course.
More and more, we are becoming a transient society. Unlike generations past (even mine), it is now a rarity for a student to finish high school with the same cohort of students he or she started kindergarten with. A little sad, sure, but it is the reality. Whether NCLB is on the books or not, national education standards are an important tool in our changing education system and our evolving economy. They are the great equalizer, ensuring that a public education is worth the same in Alabama as it is in Oregon, the same in Nevada as it is in New York.
If we want a public education to mean something again, we need to restore its value and we need to quantify its impact. The era where one could say, “well it is good enough for <insert state here>” is over. This should be the new frontier, where we demonstrate that students in our state are outperforming those in our neighboring states. The only way that works is when we measure with the same ruler. Groups like NCSL should be a key part of the dialogue to choose the right national ruler; they shouldn’t be hiding it from those who really need a good measure.
Putting the Math Cart Before the Counting Horse
If we are to improve our schools, we need research-based instruction. Student achievement increases when we use instruction and interventions that are proven effective. Do what works, and see the results. It is an easy concept to spout, but a far harder one to put into practice.
Since the release of the National Reading Panel report in April of 2000, many have called for the adoption of scientifically based practice in reading and English-Language Arts classrooms throughout the nation. We all know every student should be reading at grade level, particularly by the time they hit fourth grade. Most of us know what it takes to get a child to read proficiently. And some are unrelenting in ensuring that scientifically based reading is the one and only standard when it comes to our classrooms.
But what about math? With the passage of NCLB, we all know that reading and math are the lighthouses for student achievement (with science shortly coming online). Where are the similar demands for scientifically based math instruction in the classroom? Isn’t it just as important to do what we know works, to do what is proven effective in teaching children math skills? After all, we consistently use math as that great barometer to determining if our students have the chops to compete with students across the globe.
For those who missed it, last week Congress declared its intention to fund nearly $100 million in math instruction grants under Math Now, part of the America COMPETES Act. If you didn’t see it, Sean Cavanagh and Education Week have the story — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/26/05mathnow.h27.html.
Sure, it’s easy to compare Math Now with Reading First, at least from Eduflack’s perch. For RF, $1 billion a year to start. For Math Now, $95 million (though supporters sought $250 million). Both designed to support the adoption of instructionally sound practice. Both desperately needed, particularly in our struggling schools.
There is one major difference, though. Reading First was designed to put National Reading Panel and National Academies of Sciences’ research on how best to teach children to read into practice. We identify what works and put our money behind it. On the whole, the effort has been successful. Like just about everything, the program needs improvement (the sort of improvements most government programs can learn from). Reading First should be strengthened, tightened, and faced with greater oversight, ensuring that only truly research-based programs are receiving funding. Our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going to fund promises or pledges or hopes or silver bullets. We expect results. We pay for what works. That was the promise that Reading First made, a promise many are still waiting to be fulfilled.
Which takes us back to math. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education announced the formation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The Math Panel’s findings are expected early next year, and the charge is to do for math research much of what the NRP did for reading research. The panel is to tell us what works in teaching math, identifying the most effective and replicable instruction for empowering our students with math ability.
Makes you ask, then, what Math Now is based on, if the Math Panel’s findings aren’t due for another six months or so? Unfortunately, this may be yet another example of rhetoric not quite aligning with practice. Math Now is throwing its support behind initiative that are “research-based and have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.” Shouldn’t we be waiting for the Math Panel to issue its report, detailing what the research base is and what the data tells us about effective math instruction?
Yes, it is important that we signal we are moving beyond the status quo. We need to communicate a unifying commitment to boost student achievement. And we need to pledge our support for research-based instruction and interventions that are proven to work. Anything short of that, we are throwing good money after bad, with no hope of truly fixing the problem.
The America COMPETES Act is well-meaning legislation. And Math Now is a good idea with real potential. We just need to make sure it has the research support, the strong oversight, the cadre of advocates, and the effective communication to succeed. Education reform cannot afford another “half-way” attempt at improving instruction of a core subject matter. If we don’t take all of the necessary steps — research, policy, and communications — we will never solve the equation.
Since the release of the National Reading Panel report in April of 2000, many have called for the adoption of scientifically based practice in reading and English-Language Arts classrooms throughout the nation. We all know every student should be reading at grade level, particularly by the time they hit fourth grade. Most of us know what it takes to get a child to read proficiently. And some are unrelenting in ensuring that scientifically based reading is the one and only standard when it comes to our classrooms.
But what about math? With the passage of NCLB, we all know that reading and math are the lighthouses for student achievement (with science shortly coming online). Where are the similar demands for scientifically based math instruction in the classroom? Isn’t it just as important to do what we know works, to do what is proven effective in teaching children math skills? After all, we consistently use math as that great barometer to determining if our students have the chops to compete with students across the globe.
For those who missed it, last week Congress declared its intention to fund nearly $100 million in math instruction grants under Math Now, part of the America COMPETES Act. If you didn’t see it, Sean Cavanagh and Education Week have the story — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/26/05mathnow.h27.html.
Sure, it’s easy to compare Math Now with Reading First, at least from Eduflack’s perch. For RF, $1 billion a year to start. For Math Now, $95 million (though supporters sought $250 million). Both designed to support the adoption of instructionally sound practice. Both desperately needed, particularly in our struggling schools.
There is one major difference, though. Reading First was designed to put National Reading Panel and National Academies of Sciences’ research on how best to teach children to read into practice. We identify what works and put our money behind it. On the whole, the effort has been successful. Like just about everything, the program needs improvement (the sort of improvements most government programs can learn from). Reading First should be strengthened, tightened, and faced with greater oversight, ensuring that only truly research-based programs are receiving funding. Our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going to fund promises or pledges or hopes or silver bullets. We expect results. We pay for what works. That was the promise that Reading First made, a promise many are still waiting to be fulfilled.
Which takes us back to math. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education announced the formation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The Math Panel’s findings are expected early next year, and the charge is to do for math research much of what the NRP did for reading research. The panel is to tell us what works in teaching math, identifying the most effective and replicable instruction for empowering our students with math ability.
Makes you ask, then, what Math Now is based on, if the Math Panel’s findings aren’t due for another six months or so? Unfortunately, this may be yet another example of rhetoric not quite aligning with practice. Math Now is throwing its support behind initiative that are “research-based and have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.” Shouldn’t we be waiting for the Math Panel to issue its report, detailing what the research base is and what the data tells us about effective math instruction?
Yes, it is important that we signal we are moving beyond the status quo. We need to communicate a unifying commitment to boost student achievement. And we need to pledge our support for research-based instruction and interventions that are proven to work. Anything short of that, we are throwing good money after bad, with no hope of truly fixing the problem.
The America COMPETES Act is well-meaning legislation. And Math Now is a good idea with real potential. We just need to make sure it has the research support, the strong oversight, the cadre of advocates, and the effective communication to succeed. Education reform cannot afford another “half-way” attempt at improving instruction of a core subject matter. If we don’t take all of the necessary steps — research, policy, and communications — we will never solve the equation.
Closing the Doors?
The latest educational brouhaha in our nation’s capitol is all about the schoolhouse doors. Or in this case, about closing some of them. As part of her effort to overall DCPS, Chancellor Michelle Rhee is advocating the closure of 23 schools in Washington, DC. The reason — underutilization and enrollment decline. The full story can be found at the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011401232.html
As to be expected, more than 60 people spoke at a marathon public hearing on the subject. Community leaders protested outside. Young students urged the city not to close their school. Strong rhetoric on both sides. It was an advocacy communications dream scenario, regardless of which side you are rooting for.
So who won in the first of what will be several educational cage matches? Those individuals fighting under the Save Our Schools banner deserve some plaudits. They managed to take an issue like budgetary savings and make it personal. This was not about the $23 million savings that come from closing the schools (although some dispute that number). This was about the kids who are to be affected. The crayon-drawn signs. The young students making very personal pleas (in English and Spanish, no less). This isn’t about Excel spreadsheets, this is about the average fourth-grader in the district.
Eduflack will overlook the issue of these young kids being taken out of school to be used as a rhetorical device. And we overlook it because it was effective. We are used to seeing Willy Wilson and Marion Barry fight the fight. This is about the new generation. Save Our Schools gave voice to the students by letting the students be the voice. It was effective yesterday, and it can remain effective if they focus on such outcomes, and not on the process.
Which takes us to Chancellor Rhee. She rode tall in the saddle, listening to 59 other people before she finally got her say. Much of what she said focused on the process — utilization measures, dollar savings, and budgets. All of that is important to holding the support of the Mayor and the City Council, absolutely. But it is a non-starter with those audiences that will be affected. Parents and community leaders don’t care about enrollment declines. They want to protect their school. As we’ve said before, no matter how poorly DCPS may be doing, most will believe that their neighborhood school is still doing an effective job?
If not the process, what should Rhee be focusing on? That’s simple. Let’s talk about the future. She did some of that, giving voice to a student whose “wish list” include Spanish teachers, music teachers, and a librarian. That’s her ace card. She needs to speak for all her students. This isn’t about closing a school, this is about ensuring DCPS’ other schools have the resources to provide the curriculum, the technology, and the “coolness” that we need to keep kids in school, engaged, and on the right track. This is about what we get, not what we are giving up. This is about outcomes, not inputs.
No, it’s not an easy sell. The opposition is always poised to defend and protect their schools and their teachers. Rhee’s job is to build a strong school district with good teachers and achieving students. At some point, what your teaching and who is doing the teaching should rise above where you are teaching.
The chancellor and the mayor have a lot invested in these reforms. Once they get through this, they’ll have to battle the union over firing rights, and that may well be an even tougher battle. Now is the time for Rhee to demonstrate she has heard everything spoken to her during her honeymoon period, and that she understands the needs, desires, hopes, and dreams of DC parents and neighborhoods.
“State” the Case
Across the nation, governors and chief state school officers are now delivering their annual addresses and preparing their annual budgets. But what role will education (and education reform) play in these rhetorical events? Shrinking real estate tax rolls, worries of a recession, and demands of other social programs have many thinking that 2008 will not be the year of education.
Fortunately, we are starting to see that educational improvement is not necessarily sitting on the sidelines this year. Governors and state supes are talking about early childhood education and STEM. They are talking about real improvements, not merely attacking NCLB or the state status quo. And they are demonstrating that education is one of the strongest ways to strengthen the schools, the economy, and the future of the state.
How do they do it? Let’s go west, young men and women, and take a look at how California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken control of the bully pulpit and talked education.
In his state of the state, Schwarzenegger announced:
* California will be the first state to use its NCLB powers to turn challenged districts around, allocating a higher percentage of NCLB funds to the districts that need them most
* Establish a differentiated assistance model to get funds and support to underachieving schools.
* Provide greater flexibility to high-performing schools
* Improve the quality and access of information available to parents, educators, and policymakers on California’s teacher shortages
We’ll wait until later this week to see how the good governor is going to fund all of this, but what are the rhetorical benefits of such a platform?
* Schwarzenegger recognizes that reform requires a broad group of partners and stakeholders. He made clear that success requires the involvement of parents, educators, the business community, the legislature, and the public at large.
* He is focused on results. How do we get more resources to those states that need to improve their results? How do we reward those schools and students that are already doing well?
* He is focused on improvement, not tearing down and building new. He’s using the NCLB powers available to him (and unused by others). He’s taking control of state purse strings. He’s acting, not reacting.
Schwarzenegger is not the only governor talking the talk and walking the walk. We’re seeing similar talk in statehouses across the nation. But for those who say we can’t talk about these issues now, or such issues are too wonky, take a closer look. The California Guv has integrated education into his broader message, and demonstrated an understanding for the key issues and a focus on the future. And it may just work …
Happy Birthday
There’s no getting around the subject. This week is NCLB’s sixth birthday. What exactly do we get a law that seems to have both everything and nothing? How do we celebrate a law that has a strong and loyal opposition that is desperately hoping a seventh birthday is not in the future?
For the father of NCLB, President George W. Bush, it was all about deep dish pizza and a visit to the Windy City. For the law’s author, Senator Ted Kennedy, it was about promises of NCLB offspring, a new law with better funding that can be offered as part of reauthorization. And for its godmother, Ed Secretary Margaret Spellings, it was the promise of action without reauthorization (a “we don’t need no stinkin’ badges moment, if you will).
What has been most interesting about this year’s “celebration” has been the unified critical view of NCLB. The message from the loyal opposition has clear. NCLB is bad because of tough assessments of students and of schools.
Even if we are to eulogize NCLB tomorrow, do we really believe that measurement and evaluation is what is wrong with our K-12 system? Shouldn’t we have the strongest possible understanding of how our students are achieving? Shouldn’t we know what they know, building on their strengths and attending to their weaknesses?
Likewise, shouldn’t we know how our schools are doing? As taxpayers, we want to know that our property tax dollars are being well-spent. As parents, we want to know that our school is as good (if not better) than others in the area. And as a community, we want assurances that our school system is education our students and preparing them for a high-paying, high-skills job once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time.
Regardless of political party, educational philosophy, or general approach to life, we all have to agree that information is power. Data on student, teacher, and school performance provide us key information. Sure, we don’t have to use that information in a punitive manner. School data can be used to redirect funding or teacher resources, rather than just to identify failing schools. It can be used to identify what works, and not just as fodder to attack what doesn’t. It can be used as a learning tool and as an instructional foundation.
If we’ve learned anything over these past six years, it’s that we need more information and more data about our schools, not less. We need to know what works and what doesn’t. We need to know who’s achieving and who’s not. And most importantly, we need to know how to measure both. If data is king, we need to make sure our schools are true royalty, and not merely court jesters feeling around in a darkened corner.
Show Me The Education Money
Across the nation, governors and state legislatures are preparing their budgets and promoting their visions for this new year. Unfortunately, 2008 is looking like recent years. Rising obligations for healthcare and criminal justice and roads and virtually everything else. Concerns about shrinking state coffers, due in part to a slumping housing marketing and concerns for a recession. And great education reform ideas put pack in the drawer for another year, pining for the money, public support, or community need to move idea into law.
Yes, it is a sad story. But does it have to be that way? Is there a way to talk about education this time of year, without it just being tossed into the same ole education bucket again?
If we look at those issues that have a chance of making it into the game — preK, STEM, high school reform, postsecondary access — we are provided an interesting picture. Yes, they are all education issues. But each and every one of them can also be positioned as economic development issues. An investment in one or more of them can have a direct impact on jobs, increased revenues, economic investment, and community empowerment. And that’s how you move them out of the “great ideas” drawer and onto the text of the State of the State address.
For too long, we’ve talked about education for education’s sake. PreK is simply about those sweet little kids. High school reform is to keep teenagers engaged and in class. Postsecondary access is needed because we’ve sold the nation on the belief that everybody needs to go to college.
But let’s look (and talk about) this a little differently. We’re already seeing it with STEM education issues. STEM isn’t just about putting more kids in math and science classes. It is about preparing all students for 21st century jobs. It is about making a high school diploma more relevant and more in line with what employers need from their incoming workforce. It is about global competition and providing work and life skills for all students — not just those going on to teach trig or become doctors or rocket scientists.
This month, we’re sure to hear some talk in state capitols about investment in STEM education. And we’ll hear it most loudly where K-12, higher ed, and the business community are working together. Why? It’s not just an ed issue; it’s an employment issue. And with employment comes a stronger economy. And a reduced burden on the state justice and health systems. An investment in STEM affects all.
The same argument can be made for high school reform, where we are ensuring high school educations are relevant and effectively preparing all students for school career and life. With postsecondary access, we focus on the ability to enroll in the work certificate programs, community colleges, and four-year institutions that can prepare us for the careers of our dreams. Even preK, once we key in on the high-quality, results-driven programs, ensures that all young students — even those from the poorest families — develop the tools to access the pathways to those good jobs.
The era of education reform for education’s sake is over. If state-level reforms are to take hold, we need to focus on return on investment. Show that a dollar of education today will reap five dollars of increased revenue or three dollars of reduced social services costs tomorrow. The data’s there. The interest is there. We just need to bring it all together. It may seem silly, but we need to demonstrate it is relevant.
Yes, we need ed reform and we need to articulate why. And the reason is not increased test scores. That is merely a measurement to know we are doing our job. At the end of the day, we reform to improve. We improve to provide today’s students with a better education, a better job, and a better life than their parents. It may be clichéd, but it’s the truth.
A Seat at the Table
Why is it so hard to reform our K-12 systems? For one, virtually everyone has an opinion on the schools (and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing). We’ve all attended schools. We know what we liked and what we didn’t. And we have thoughts on what would have made it better.
More so, education reform is an emotional process. We all know someone affected by it. Teachers, principals, support staff. But most definitely students. And if we don’t know a student affected today, we sure know one impacted yesterday or tomorrow.
Eduflack is usually up on the soapbox, advocating for inclusion when it comes to stakeholders. If we are improving the schools, we need all the help we can get. That’s why so many reform efforts include parents, community leaders, business leaders, the clergy, and just about anyone else walking through that educational village.
The good folks out at LAUSD seem to understand part of that, but skipped an entire chapter of the book. As part of his proposal to close a number of campuses out in Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa and his team reached out to teachers. They reached out to parents. They sought buy-in and support for the Mayor’s plan. They even allowed these stakeholders to vote on the plan. The LA Times has the story — http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-students2jan02,1,1342026.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true.
Forgotten in this otherwise strong public engagement strategy was the student. The students even actively sought a voice in the process. They have distinct views that impacted the plan. But at the end of the day, according to the LA Times, they were brushed aside so the “adults” could make these important decisions.
And that, my friends, is a huge communications blunder. Too often, we write off students in the reform process, believing that they don’t care, don’t know, or don’t matter. In actuality, students know far more than we give them credit for. They know how important a high school diploma is. They know they need postsecondary education. And they know a good education today results in a good job tomorrow. They get it. And they feel it more deeply than many of the other stakeholders engaged in the process. I am consistently surprised by what I hear from the average middle or high schooler in a focus group or at a public event. They get it (and sometimes understand it far better than their teachers or parents do).
Of course we don’t want to let a group of middle schoolers be the deciding vote on whether their school is to be closed next year. But they should have a seat at the table. They should be part of the process.
If we want today’s students to be the leaders of tomorrow, we need to push them and engage them and give them the opportunities to lead and to understand what public stewardship really is. They don’t get that from a pat on the head or a squeeze of a shoulder. They get it from being treated as equals and given the impressions their voice, opinions, and experiences matter.
Those Good Ole 2008 Resolutions
Today is the start of a new year. That means it is time for resolutions. Typically, we promise to lose weight, spend more time with our families, and earn more money (at least those seem to be at the top of Eduflack’s list each year). But a new year, particularly an election year, provides an interesting opportunity to determine what we resolve to do to improve K-12 education in the United States.
So here’s my list for what the education reform community should resolve to do in 2008:
* Advocate for reforms that are focused on outcomes, and not just the inputs. Results matter.
* Ensure that all key stakeholders — educators, policymakers, business community, community leaders, and students — all have a seat, and a voice, at the reform table
* Avoid the silver bullets and magical elixirs that are being peddled every day. Real improvement takes hard work, real commitment, and a long-term view
* Break down the silos, instead of building more walls. We all share the same goal — improving student learning and student achievement. We need all the help we can get. We shouldn’t be excluding individuals, organizations, or audiences from the get-go.
* At the same time, we can’t stand for those who put up obstacles — rhetorically, politically, policy-wise, or practically. We can’t win over 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. That means we need to push through the obstacles, not dwell on them.
* We need to recognize and appreciate the education continuum. PreK is going to be a big buzz word in State of the State addresses this month. But that doesn’t mean that high schools or elementary reading and math no longer merit our attention or funding. K-12 reform means reform across all 13 years of school.
* Put real reforms ahead of NCLB. If there truly is interest in education issues and school improvement, we shouldn’t let a label like NCLB keep us from moving forward.
And as with other resolutions, we need to figure out a way to measure our effectiveness. Yes, there are both quantitative and qualitative ways to measure educational effectiveness. And both play a valuable role in measuring efficacy. Regardless of the tool, we need to make sure our interventions work. And we need to see them work in schools like ours, in classrooms like ours, with students like ours.
And what about Eduflack? I have a few resolutions for this blog as well:
* To provide a regular stream of commentary, offering at least three posts a week (while personally hoping for one a day)
* To be more analytical, and a little less preachy (unless y’all want preachy, the soapbox is always ready)
* To throw a greater spotlight on those issues that aren’t getting the attention they deserve
* To build up the positive, instead of focusing on the negatives
* To accept that NCLB 2.5 (or are we at 3.0) should not be focal point for 2008. If it passes, it passes. If not, we move on. Improvement, not NCLB reauthorization, is the goal.
* To amplify the call for national standards, even if it is as unpopular as a skunk at a garden party these days. You have to stand up for what you believe.
All I ask is that you keep reading, keep me honest, and call me out when needed. Here’s to 2008!
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 