Month: October 2008

Educating Ourselves on the Candidates’ Education Platforms

Eduflack John McCain, Obama, Presidential campaign

I admit it, I am a gadget freak.  When the latest cell phone (I use a second generation iPhone) or laptop (currently working off the MacBook Air with the SSD) or TV comes out, I usually want it.  Eduwife has to talk me off the ledge, as we discuss whether I really need it and whether Eduson has a high chance of breaking it should I get it (for the record, he has broken three of my cell phones in the last year and a half, including that first-generation iPhone just last month).

I’m intrigued by technology.  With the iPhone, Apple has a terrific feature called the App Store, where you can add all sorts of random, odd, and useful functions to your phone.  I’ve got my EBay app (I’m an addict), Facebook (equally addictive), a Spanish phrase book, and both a slots and a blackjack game.
But I was really caught when I saw that one of the top downloaded applications for iPhone was one for Obama ’08.  It is intended to help those far younger and far more technologically savvy than I use their phones to get together, canvas together, and generally support the campaign together.  A support group for the true believers.
I was taken, though, with how clearly the Obama iPhone app laid out the policy platforms for Obama-Biden.  And it got me thinking.  We sit around and complain about how little education is being covered in this campaign, practically wetting ourselves when Gov, Sarah Palin mentioned education as an issue in last week’s vice presidential debate.  We reflect on and over-analyze a few throw-away lines at both of the conventions and on a policy speech issued by Obama in America’s heartland last month.  But where do the two candidates really stand on education issues?  What will their federal education agenda look like come winter of 2009?
So I’m going to veer off my regular course a little, set aside the opinion, and do a little relaying of facts.  Working from the websites (the prime communication vehicle for most orgs and individuals these days) of the two campaigns, we’re going to take a peek at their full education platforms.  Tomorrow, we’ll spotlight the education plans from Sen. John McCain.  Thursday, we’ll take a look at what Sen. Barack Obama has to offer.  Then on Friday, I’ll get back on my soapbox and opine away on who gets us where we need to go on education improvement.
Now’s the time to get your points in.  Want to make sure I pay attention to a particular idea?  Worried that a key policy isn’t fully articulated on the web?  Just want to get the right words in?  I’m just an email away — eduflack@eduflack.com.  Once my missives are posted, everyone is free to rip into me for being wrong, off course, a Kool-aid drinker, or a Pollyanna.  Don’t worry, you can’t be a good flack without the thickest of thick skin.
  

The Mind as an Education Tool

Eduflack Math, SBRR, Science, STEM

Eduflack is a true disciple of the science of education.  Over the years, though, I’ve heard many people describe instruction as more art than anything else.  At a National School Boards Association national conference years ago, I actually got into an argument with an attendee who tried to explain to me that it was wrong to try and force kids to learn to read at any age.  His thought, they will eventually come along to the issue.  Instead, we should be encouraging them to play guitar or yodel or do whatever feels good, and once they were focusing on what they were enjoying, they may soon decide that reading could be a joyful activity as well.  Reading will come in time, through wishful thinking and pockets full of rainbows.

Perhaps that’s why we often hear that the reading wars are an issue of phonics versus whole language.  The only problem with that, though, is that phonics is an instructional approach (and but one piece of many instructional approaches needed for effective reading teaching), where whole language is a classroom philosophy.  Anyone who has attended a postsecondary institution knows there is a difference between science and philosophy.  But I digress.
During my work in scientifically based reading advocacy, I was most taken with a visit I made to Georgetown University and the time I spent with Professor Guinevere Eden.  Dr. Eden showed me how MRI machines can help diagnose reading skill struggles.  By studying the brain, we can literally see students struggling with phonics or fluency or vocabulary.  And with the right interventions, we can actually see the brain changing, with colors and activity evolving as students acquire the reading skills they need to become reading proficient and achieve in the classroom.
After all of these years, we know the brain science associated with reading instruction.  We also know that such approaches and such science applied to other instructional topics as well, particularly mathematics instruction.
Don’t believe me?  Then check out an upcoming summit here in Washington on October 21.  The MIND Research Institute will host a national summit on math education and brain research.  Consider it the perfect chaser to this week’s U.S. Department of Education’s implementation summit on the National Math Panel’s report.
We all know how important reaching multiple audiences is to promoting a good education idea.  The MIND Research Institute is not only promising the usual practitioners and policymakers, but they are bring neuroscientists to the fold, giving them the soapbox to talk about real, measurable, non-squishy research in instructional practice.  It is a little different for DC, yes, but different can be good, particularly as we struggle to identify the best ways to get proven instruction in our math classrooms.  Check out www.mindresearch.net for more information.
Doesn’t matter if it is reading, math, science, or even the arts.  Research-based practice is research-based practice.  Whatever we can do to better explain the research base, educate stakeholders on good versus bad research, and actually get scientifically based education research into practice is an action worth taking.  Hopefully, the MIND Research Summit will keep the discussion going, demonstrating that science tells us a great deal about instruction and doing what works shouldn’t be limited to reading instruction.

Going Where the Education Action Is

Eduflack AP, AYP, early childhood education, ELL, Gates Foundation, national standards, NCLB, NGA, STEM

If you spend enough time reading about education reform — particularly over the past few years — you get the sense that Washington, DC is the unwavering center and base for all that is new, all that is relevant, and all that is necessary to school improvement.  NCLB.  The U.S. Department of Education.  The Institute of Education Sciences.  The blob of representative education organizations.  All, it seems, serve as the epicenter for real change in our educational system.

But when you really get down to it, the real action of education reform is not at the national level.  In reality, the U.S. Department of Education and the federal government account for less than eight cents of every dollar spent on public K-12 education in the United States.  Despite the tales coming from the status quoer bogeymen, there are few educators who are taking their marching orders directly from NCLB or from the data captured by IES or NAGB.  And although some would like to believe it, superintendents and principals are not waiting for detailed instructions from the EdSec before they take action on instructional improvement.
Don’t get me wrong.  The federal hand is a great influencer in what is happening in education reform.  It provides an enormous carrot, usually in the form of federal dollars, to get new and valuable programs — such as Reading First or the American Competitiveness Initiative — from research to policy to practice.  It also provides a more ominous stick, providing punishment for those who fail to meet AYP, misuse federal funds, or generally choose not to follow the mission and guidelines put forward by the federal government (particularly as it relates to important laws such as Title I).
In a perfect world, the federal education lever is one of a velvet hammer.  It provides us the opportunity to feel good about what we are doing, while knowing that swift and meaningful judgment can come down on those who ignore, flaunt, or seek to reverse the laws of the land.  Be it gender equity, special education, teacher training, or even reading or math instruction, there is little doubt that the educational velvet hammer rests in the hands of ED and the EdSec.
Many know I spend most of my working days helping organizations, companies, and agencies determine the best ways to advocate for education issues, particularly improvements to the current K-12 system.  Much of these discussions tend to focus on the federal, for the reasons detailed above.  We all want to meet with folks on the seventh floor of ED, hoping to convince them we’ve built a better mousetrap or offer a solution unmatched by those that have come previously.  As a good counselor and advisor, I try to respect the wishes of my clients, and identify ways they can be a part of the federal discussion of education reform.
Eduflack finds himself spending more and more time these days, though, redirecting these good intentions to where the education action really is.  For those looking to make a difference, for those looking to enact meaningful change, for those looking to truly boost student achievement and improve instruction, for those looking to identify and develop an education solution that can be implemented at scale, the real action is happening at the state level.
Real reform has the greatest opportunity to succeed when introduced at the state level.  First, it can serve as a lever of influence on federal decisionmakers, demonstrating the results we need to see that a particular program or intervention works.  Second, it has the power to implement those changes in a large number of school districts simultaneously, using the state’s own carrot/stick powers to implement reforms directly in school districts that need the help the most.  The feds have levels of bureaucracy to go through before they can reach the school district. The state gets there with a phone call and a well-constructed relationship.
In the education policy world, we’re all looking to the future to see what the next version of No Child Left Behind will hold.  But we don’t need to wait for the NCLB lever to enact real, meaningful reforms.  The Gates Foundation recognized this long ago, and has invested significant money in statewide education reforms designed to model innovations.  The National Governors Association has focused tremendous effort and incredible intellectual capital on issues such as high school reform, AP, science/math education, national standards, and data collection — each path offering statewide solutions and demonstrating statewide results.  The National Conference of State Legislatures has all but ignored NCLB, focusing on its own issues.  And membership groups such as the Council of Chief State School Officers, Education Commission of the States, and even the Southern Regional Education Board have taken courageous policy stands to enact real reforms that improve the quality and results of education across the states.
What’s the lesson to be learned here?  Those seeking to enact real, meaningful education reforms must include statewide engagement strategies as part of their efforts.  They must recognize that each state is different, and each state must be handled and approached differently.  They must know that most state departments of education are vastly understaffed and overworked, and thus have little time to hear about the great ideas.  They must know that results are king, whether you be a principal, a state education chief, or the EdSec herself.  And they must know that states watch what other states do, they model after the successful ones, and they try to ensure their “competitors” don’t get too far ahead of them when it comes to policy or education results.
The success of integrated communications advocacy comes when you reach multiple stakeholders at multiple levels.  We all know that.  And preaching state education officials as a key stakeholder is hardly a new idea to slap anyone upside the head.  But we all must remember where the real action is.  We all must remember where real change and improvement can occur.  And we all must remember who can make a real difference.
High school reform.  Graduation rates.  National standards.  General accountability provisions.  STEM education.  Early childhood ed.  ELL and ESL.  RTI.  Closing the achievement gap.  Reading, math, and science instruction.  Professional development.  Teacher recruitment.  Online education.  Charter schools.  True success for these and other issues lies in our states,working in partnership with bellweather school districts.  To paraphrase from politics, as Ohio (and Pennsylvania and Georgia and Florida and Arizona and Minnesota) goes, so goes the nation.  True in politics.  Definitely true in education reform.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike.  Over at Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper, check out a similar post on the power of the states in education policy this year — www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2008/10/education-really-is-a-state-issue-at-least-this-year/  

Bringing Together Effective Education Communicators

Eduflack Marketing, PR

About a year and a half ago, I launched Eduflack because I saw there was a voice missing from the education reform debate.  Since I’ve built a career on the issue of public engagement, I have long believed that effective communications (and advocacy and public affairs and marketing) are necessary components of meaningful education reform.  Few were talking about how effectively we talk about education reform, so Eduflack was born.

Since then, I’ve tried to focus (or tangentially focus) my critiques on the messaging, the strategy, and the communications surrounding education issues.  From time to time, as Eduwife likes to point out, I veer off the intended path, moving into more focused discussions of policy and wonkishness.  This is particularly true, as any loyal reader knows, of issues such as reading instruction, education research, and accountability.
Over the last few months, I’ve grown troubled.  And this is more than Eduflack’s general sense of cynicism, mistrust, and fear of things that go bump in the night.  What troubles me?  We preach so much about modeling best or promising practices in education policy, but we do almost nothing to put it into practice in education communications.
Over the past 15 years, I have worked on a great number of policy issues — healthcare, technology, workforce development and labor relations, finance, and federal appropriations to name but a few.  All those areas seem to have ways to bring their industry communicators together.  But not education.
For those involved in marketing, PR, communications, public affairs, design, or advocacy in the education sector, there is little to bring us together to learn or share promising practices.  Companies and not-for-profits will work with their PR agencies.  Those agencies know who their competitors are.  We all often see each other at conferences or events, and many of us read each others’ quotes in education publications or on blogs.  But there was nothing to unite us.
In the communications space, we have a number of membership organizations.  The International Association of Business Communicators and Public Relations Society of America are the two leaders.  Neither organization spotlights the education sector or considers it on level with issues such as healthcare, technology, tourism, or anything else.  Those in higher education will often turn to the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, or CASE.  But CASE is far more of a policy group, whose members just happen to be in the communications field.  Again, no true organization to bring us together.
So I’ve decided it is time to try and do something about.  Today, I am officially announcing the establishment of Educommunicators, an online community designed to bring together marketing communications professionals in the education sector.  I’ll be the first to say this is a work in progress.  My hope is that Educommunicators will evolve, over time, to meet the needs of its members.  For now, I see it focusing on a few key issues:
* Sharing information on key policy and industry issues, providing news from valuable third parties
* Spotlighting promising communications efforts, be they led by companies, non-profits, government entities, or PR agencies
* Recognizing those individuals who are doing good work in education communications
* Providing a forum for dialogue and discussion on policy issues, the media, and other issues important to members
* Sharing information on new hires, job opportunities, new clients/projects, and similar updates important to members
* Building a broad and deep network of education communications pros, a network akin to what EWA does for education writers or what AASA does for school district leaders
And if I get so bold, we may even start assembling a directory of those PR firms that specialize in education issues (and do a good job at it).  No one else is doing it, but there is a real need for such a directory in the education community.
How are we going to do it?  Today, we officially launch four different forums to form a network of information sharing.  The first is a website — www.educommunicators.com.  This site will serve as the core communication vehicle for the organization, and will likely see the most change over time.  Pages and topics will be developed based on feedback from membership.
The second is a blog — blog.educommunicators.com.  This blog will allow for regular updates on the issues of the day.
The third and fourth vehicles will tap the power of online social networking.  Educommunicators has launched a group on Facebook (Educommunicators) that are all welcome to join.  There is a similar group on www.linkedin.com (also Educommunicators) that will be open to all those who join it.
I pledge to do my best to share all information across the four platforms, so if you use one, you will still get the information everyone sees.  Of course, it also means that some of you may be getting multiple invitations from me, be it on Facebook, LinkedIn, or from my personal contact lists.
What am I asking for in return?  First, join Educommunicators.  There is no fee and no expectation here.  Sign on to the Facebook or LinkedIn groups or send me your contact information to info@educommunicators.com.  You’ll then be a founding member of Educommunicators and a piece in building this important online community.
Once you’ve bought into the concept, I hope you’ll participate in its development.  Share this post or the website address with any and all interested parties, suggesting they join as well.  Send me ideas for the blog or the website.  Let me know about your projects or the work you’re engaged in.  Alert me to new hires or new job opportunities in education communications.  Share any and all information that a fellow education comm pro would want to know.  And we’ll just take it from there.
If you want to go the extra step, I could always use writers for the blog.  I could also use some volunteers to serve as board members (of sorts) for the organization to ensure we stay true to a mission and core goals.  
Lots of opportunities.  Few obstacles.  All we need is participation.  So please join Educommunicators.  I need your help.  And you’ll benefit from the information and insights that will be gleaned from the process.  I promise.

The Disconnect Between the Policy World and the Real World

Eduflack AYP, charter schools, national standards, STEM

Sometimes, we forget that is done and said in Washington simply stays in Washington.  We expect that Main Street USA understands what we do, why we do it, and who we do it for.  It’s almost like we buy into the notion that, “we’re from Washington, and we’re here to help you.”

Eduflack was reminded (like I really needed a reminder) of the disconnect between the education policy world and the real world yesterday at a forum sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce and Talkers Magazine on our nation’s future education agenda.  The headline — lots of interesting comments, some that were greatly reassuring we were on the right track, education reform-wise, and some that were downright disturbing.
First for the best of times.  The forum was framed by two important voices in this debate — the Chamber’s Arthur Rothkopf and Education Trust’s Kati Haycock.  There are few better voices in DC to help identify the problems in public education AND identify the real solutions we can adopt to improve instruction and better prepare our students for the rigors of tomorrow.
Kicking off by stating “the business community is dissatisfied with the quality of what it receives” from the staid and traditional K-12 system, Rothkopf laid out a clear six-point plan for education reform:
* NCLB (or whatever we choose to call it) must be reauthorized, strengthened, and improved
* Better teachers, with performance measured and better, merit-based pay going to the educators who deserve it
* Better management of the system, with more accountability
* Better data (along with better application of the data)
* Higher standards (though no mention of a single national standard)
* More innovation, with an emphasis on investments in charters and online education
By this time, Eduflack was ready to jump to his feet, crying out an “amen.”  But he waited, knowing the true voice of all that is right and effective in education reform — EdTrust’s Haycock — was about to take hold of the microphone.  She didn’t disappoint.  Haycock clearly laid out the problem, “the deeper you dig, the more worried you become” when it comes to K-12 instruction.  She reminded the audience this isn’t just an issue of poor kids or an issue of kids of color, and that even our nation’s highest achievers simply can’t measure up compared to the highest achievers of other industrialized nations.  Ultimately, the problem flows from the choices we make in education — choices like what to expect from our students and what to teach our students.
Haycock’s remarks were not all doom and gloom.  She reminded us (as Eduflack has been saying for years) that there are placed that are doing it right, schools and districts where we’re boosting achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Places where we are simply doing what works.  She rattled off schools in Georgia, Delaware, Kansas, and New York, for instance, that can serve as beacons for teaching at high levels and achieving at even higher levels.
And then the worst of times, the moment when I was slapped upside the head with a reality stick.  The program moved from Rothkopf and Haycock to four local radio talk show hosts — selected by sponsor Talkers magazine — to represent Main Street USA and what is being heard on the airwaves throughout the United States.  Here in policyworld, we frame education reform around issues such as accountability, quality, results, and research.  We talk about processes and outcomes.  We look to separate the status quo from the innovation.  Oh what a sheltered world we live in.
From listening to our esteemed talk show hosts, the ed policy community may as well be living on Mars.  They focused on issues such as student discipline, asking why today’s students don’t fear their teachers the way we did decades ago.  They talked about the failures or parents (who bear some responsibility, don’t get me wrong, but are more a part of the solution, not a major part of the problem).  That their former great high schools are now low-income high schools.  They talked about students being down because all their potential jobs have gone to India (how 2005/World is Flat).  And they even said that vo-tech high school students enrolled in cosmetology courses are getting the higher-level math skills they need to succeed, so we shouldn’t worry at all.
It wasn’t all bad.  Talker Joe Madison declared that “Education is the new currency of the 21st century.”  For the most part, the talkers tried to personalize the story.  Communication-wise, such an approach is a good thing.  It makes it easier for stakeholders to relate and understand the issues at hand.  Unfortunately, here they were personalizing the trivial.  The word accountability didn’t come out of the talkers’ mouths until the very end.  The issue of national standards never came up.  To the contrary, we had one talker actually saying it was unfair to expect a state like Mississippi to perform as a state like Massachusetts does?
Unfair?  I would say not.  If we are truly worried about jobs going away and kids being unmotivated because they don’t see employment opportunities, we need to raise standards.  More importantly, we need to show a potential employer that a high school graduate in Mississippi has the same math and problem-solving skills as a graduate in Massachusetts, Arizona, or North Dakota.  We need to show all our schools are making the grade, not just a select few in a select few states.
Fortunately, Rothkopf and Haycock were able to bring us back to reality.  With Rothkopf, it was the realization that the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to succeed in college are the same skills one needs to succeed in the workforce (a statement that high school reform and STEM advocates, including Eduflack), have long trumpeted.
Before departing, Haycock left the audience with the sobering fact that the greatest obstacle facing school improvement is one of complacency.  Yes, improvement comes from innovation and new ideas focused on achievement and success.  But those improvements require the rocking of boats, the upsetting of apple carts, and the changing of minds — just the sort of things the status quoers fight against.  
What lessons are to be learned here?  More than anything, we need more people calling in to radio talk shows to discuss issues such as student achievement, school accountability, and research-based decisionmaking.  When we talk of such issues in DC, they tend to drop like a stone, with a thud to the bottom.  Discuss them in public forums like talk radio, and they have the possibility of skipping across the pond, causing ripples that can be unmeasurable.

Closing the Gap?

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, NAEP, NCLB

Has No Child Left Behind worked?  That may be a question best left to sociologists or historians or anthropologists, but it is one we must be asking as congressional committees and presidential education advisors continue to contemplate the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (a reauthorization that is past due, I might add.)

When first passed into law, NCLB was positioned as an effective tool to close the achievement gap.  By “eliminating the soft bigotry of low expectations,” NCLB would penetrate the schools and communities that have long suffered, providing hope, opportunity, and real demonstrations of achievement for kids that have long been written off.
Of course, these past few years, NCLB has been seen far more as a punch line to a bad joke, a walking, talking example of burdensome regulations and over-testing.  It’s almost like we’ve forgotten the intent of the law, and the goal of ensuring that every student — regardless of race, gender, neighborhood, or socioeconomic standing — has the opportunity to achieve academically.
It is forgotten, that is, until the data reminds us otherwise.  For those doubting Thomases, today’s Washington Post offers yet more proof that NCLB is, indeed, working.  The Post’s Maria Glod and Daniel de Vise offer up an analysis that shows it clearly.  And the story lede says it all — “since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind law, students from poor families in the Washington area have made major gains on reading and math tests and are starting to catch up with those from middle-class and affluent backgrounds.”
What does the Post analysis show, other than NCLB works?  The data is quite clear … and quite interesting.  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103096.html
In”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103096.html
In Maryland, the reading and math achievement gaps have closed, according to results from the Maryland School Assessment.  In Anne Arundel County, the reading performance gap shrunk from 24 to 14, while math moved from 20 down to 14.  In Howard County, the reading gap shrunk from 31 to 17, while the math gap shrunk from 33 to 25.  And in Montgomery County, the reading gap shrunk from 28 to 14 and the math from 26 to 17.
And in Virginia, on its Standards of Learning?  In Fairfax County, the reading gap shrunk from 20 to 11, the math gap from 29 to 16.  In Loudoun County, reading gaps went from 24 to 15, while math went from 20 to 17.  And in Prince William, reading closed from 18 to 9, while the math gap went from 15 to 11.
All data was measured from 2003 to 2007.  And before you ask the question, there doesn’t seem to be good data for DCPS, with Stanford Achievement Tests and the Comprehensive Assessment System showing little results of meaning. 
What does it all tell us?
* In school districts, at least those in the greater Washington area, NCLB has worked.  From 2003 to 2007, we’ve seen real, demonstrable results closing the gap in reading and math achievement
* Despite popular belief, reading scores are improving.  In fact, in most of the counties studied by the Washington Post, reading gaps have narrowed more than math gaps.  In Arlington County, VA, for instance, the reading gap shrank (as NCLB and Reading First intended), but the math gap did not. 
* Good data takes time.  Education researchers have long told me you need at least five years of good data to determine the effectiveness of an education reform.  Imagine that, the Post looked at five years of NCLB era data, and found real improvement.
* The achievement gap is a very real issue, and needs to be a very real focus on any ongoing reform.  If we are truly going to improve the quality of public education in the United States, we need to show meaningful gains for low-income students, for African-American students, and for Hispanic students.  Educational opportunity for all needs to include all, no matter how you disaggregate the data.
Kudos to the Washington Post for its analysis, and for stepping forward (on the front page of the paper, no less) and claiming that NCLB is indeed closing the achievement gap.  But if it is true here in Washington, odds are the same results are found in cities and towns throughout the United States.  Where are the similar studies?  Who is looking at similar achievement data?  Who is talking about what is being done (or has been done) to close the achievement gap in cities like Chicago and Atlanta and Dallas and Phoenix and Los Angeles?  Who is speaking truth, despite an unpopular law with a bad reputation?
If we’re going to continue these positive trends, now is the time to speak up.
 

Virtually, the Next Big Thing

Eduflack AFT, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, Gates Foundation, NEA, Online Education

Without doubt, we in education reform like to follow the trends.  We like to determine what the next big thing is, and then jump on that bandwagon before everyone else has grabbed hold for themselves.  When Reading First was all the rage in 2003, most looking at the tea leaves were certain that early reading would be the next big thing.  At the time, no one was even considering the sort of high school reform that the Gates Foundation was ushering in, full force, by 2005.

Lately, I’ve been hearing from a lot of my reading friends, colleagues, and clients that the “next big thing” is RTI, or Response to Intervention.  I’m guessing RTI has moved to the top of the list because it has been the subject of many an RFP (meaning there is money attached), and groups like the International Reading Association has put it on the hot list.  But I’m not a believer.  Until folks get their hands around the need for the true pre- and post-assessments necessary for effective RTI (and most trying to sell a solution are not), RTI will simply be an also ran.
As we forecast, then, what comes next, we must also decide what issue has run its course.  For the past few months now, Eduflack has been offering private eulogies for the voucher movement.  Yes, school choice is still one of the most important issues the education community — particularly those operating in failing schools — faces.  But DCPS has all but killed and buried its landmark voucher program.  Results coming out of bellweather voucher cities such as Milwaukee and Cleveland have not shown the results many expected.  And even the voucher haven of Florida has watched as its many voucher programs have been scaled back.
So what’s next?  What is the next great issue in school reform?  Where is the next great fight to be waged?  The tale of vouchers helps point us in the right direction.  The next big thing will remain school choice, but it will be a redefined debate — charter versus virtual.
It wasn’t so long ago that charter schools were seen as niche programs run out of someone’s basement.  Today, we see well-run charters dominating the education improvement debate.  Cities like DC, New Orleans, and Cleveland are now seeing charters challenge traditional public schools, student for student.  In DC, the Catholic Archdiocese has decided to convert a number of their previously private Catholic schools into public charter schools.  Why?  First to address the issue of the failed voucher experiment in DC.  Second, and more importantly, to provide broader reach of high-quality instruction across the city it serves.
Over the past decade, public charter schools have demonstrated the ability to build a better mousetrap.  Those that have focused on strong infrastructure, good instruction, and effective measurement and accountability are fulfilling our mission of student improvement.  They are seeing results on their student achievement numbers, and they are pushing traditional public schools to do a better job, or risk losing more students to better run charters with better results.
After all, wasn’t that the goal?  Charters were never intended to replace the public schools, waging a bloodless coup for control of public education.  Instead, they sought to show we could do a better job, particularly in those communities with failing schools.  Reaching the same students, they could build a better school, equip a better teacher, and generate better results.  And with the right management, vision, and commitment, they are succeeding.  Charters are changing the landscape, and that change is reflected in both a shift in AFT and NEA’s view of charters and the public and private positions taken by the presidential campaigns on school choice.
But there is an interesting fork in that road to the next great thing.  A year ago, I would have placed my money for charters to win, place, and show.  After all, they lack the radioactivity of the voucher movement.  They have a network of educators and funders throughout the nation.  And they have a documentable track record of positive results.  But then along came a pesky little thing called the virtual school.
Again, our sights are set down on the Sunshine State.  Yesterday’s Palm Beach Post reports on a new state mandate that school districts must now create an all virtual school option for K-12 instruction.  The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having”>www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having formerly worked for a proposed provider of online high school education, I can see the benefit for school districts.  The need for school buildings and facilities drop dramatically.  Worries about teacher shortages, particularly in areas such as math, science, and foreign language, all but disappear.  Students are provided the option to pursue courses of study that are relevant to their interests and needs, not just those courses where 24 fellow classmates want to share a classroom.  And if it works for higher education, why not K-12.
The problem, of course, is we still struggle with high-quality online higher education.  Employers discount the value of a degree from an online institution.  Graduation rates are traditionally significantly lower in virtual higher ed institutions than they are in traditional bricks-and-mortar institutions.  And the variance in quality, regulation, and results still has yet to be determined.
Despite these concerns, virtual education is here to stay, and places like Florida are determined to integrate it into the framework of K-12 education.  What does that mean for the next big thing?  Perhaps we are looking at a hybrid — a melding of the mission, oversight, and outcomes of a well-run public charter school with the options and flexibility of a virtual school.  Expansion of charter school course choice through virtually delivered options.  A way to bring well-run charter school models up to scale in communities where demand or sheer numbers are just lacking.  A chance to bring 21st century thinking and technology to 21st century school choice.
Now is the time for someone to seize the cutting edge mantle from vouchers and move the school choice movement to the next level.  The race is now between the model charter school and the edgy virtual school to see who can capture the public attention and who can demonstrate the results we demand from the next generation of public education.

Stronger American Schools?

Eduflack Gates Foundation, PR

Thanks to the folks over at This Week in Education, we learn that the Broad and Gates Foundations have decided to end funding for their joint Strong American Schools/Ed in 08 initiative.  When it was launched a year and a half ago, SAS leaders pledged to place education atop the list of policy issues discussed and debated during the 2008 presidential debate.  Since then, the mortgage debacle, greater attention on environmentalism (thanks to Al Gore’s Nobel), rising consumer costs, and now the latest financial industry crisis, education just hasn’t gotten the foothold it deserved in election politics.

We all recognize that education is not going to be a major player over the next month.  It won’t be a major focus of tomorrow’s VP debate.  It won’t drive the two remaining presidential showdowns.  It is unlikely it will be the topic of a campaign commercial or of third-party spending from PACs and special interest groups.  So the decision makes practical sense in our impractical political world.
What has SAS left us with?  First and foremost, it has provided a network for dialogue.  By SAS’ own statistics, the organization has hosted more than 800 meetings around the country to discuss the needs in public education.  They’ve placed articles and opeds in leading newspapers.  They’ve supported advertising campaigns.  And they’ve gotten both campaigns to think about education issues, at least to the extent where they have built strong education policy teams and are already thinking through transition issues.
When the books are closed on Ed in 08, it will have spent slightly more than a third of total funds originally intended for the effort.  By now, though, we all realize that money doesn’t buy results.  Thanks to the Puget Sound Business Journal, we know approximately $24 million has been spent on this initiative.   Instead of asking about the remaining $36 million, we should focus on where the money spent has gotten us.  More importantly, are we better off now than we were 18 months ago?
As education reformers, we have to believe that the answer is yes.  Beyond the quantifiable results that SAS will document in the coming months, the effort has demonstrated that there is interest in a national debate on the future of education.  We have demonstrated that people do care about the fate of our public schools, the choices we can make, the power we have to change and improve what is available to our kids and our communities.
Just as important, though, SAS has shown us the most important part of education reform — the need for clear goals and the need for a clear call to action.  If Ed in 08 had any shortcoming, it was that it refused to advocate for a particular position.  Yes, raising awareness is important, particularly when we are talking about raising awareness about the current state of the American public school system.  But awareness is just the first step on the road to success.
What SAS lacked, and what so many education organizations must now take up, is a clear call to action.  SAS informed.  It sought to build commitment for that information.  The lacking piece, however, was mobilizing the community to take specific action.  To change public thinking.  To change public behavior.  To change our public schools.
Moving forward, the Gates and Broad Foundations are left with infinite options.  They have made an unwavering commitment to improving the quality and outcomes of public education throughout the United States.  More than ever, those resources must be committed to programs that can be replicated and duplicated.  They must be committed to programs that can be adopted by school after school, district after district, and state after state.  They must be results-based, with an emphasis on data and accountability.  They must make a difference, both today and for the long term.
Now, we must look for ways to build on the work of SAS and Ed in 08, ensuring that we learn and move forward from what has been learned.  Ed in 08 must not be yet another initiative that is boxed up and put away, not to be looked at again.  Let’s tap the energy, the network, and the possibility to move from raising awareness to making a difference.