Year: 2008

How Do I Rank?

Eduflack higher ed, Marketing, NCLB, Online Education, PR

We all like to know how we are doing, particularly compared with others.  The cornerstone of NCLB is assessment, providing the tools so we can compare our schools with those in the next district or the next state.  But what do rankings really say?  How effective a communication tool are school rankings?

Today’s WaPo has a number of respected colleges and universities calling for major changes in the ever-popular US News & World Report college rankings.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900665.html  At the same time, Newsweek magazine announces it Top 100 high schools.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18757087/site/newsweek/

As for Eduflack, I went to a West Virginia high school who’s experience with the Newsweek rankings is limited to receiving the High Schools issue each year.  But I also graduated from U.Va., regularly rated the top public university of the nation.  So I’ve been part of the best of times and the worst of times, if you will.

Such rankings, like all data, have their merits if scientifically sound and used properly.  And such rankings, like any communications tool, can be effective if communicated appropriately.  How do we do it?

1. Use it to support the overall message.  Students aren’t attending a college because of its ranking.  They want a good school that provides for their academic and social needs.  They visit campus, they like what they see.  When the rankings come, it validates the decision.  It supports the belief that X College is a good school, a school worth attending.  A student feels good about the choice because USNWR (and the respected folks who create their rankings) have agreed with their view of X College.  It comes with a seal of approval, and a seal that teachers, parents, and guidance counselors respect.

2. Use it aspirationally.  Rankings are motivation.  Want to rise from third to second tier in regional colleges?  See who is in the second tier and try to emulate their programs and their marketing.  Same goes for high schools.  Enhance AP or IB offerings.  Mirror what those above you are doing.  The best thing about such rankings is they provide a spotlight on best practices, practices that our K-16 system desperately needs.

3. Promote, promote, promote.  Everyone believes they are doing a good job.  And everyone wants to be recognized for it.  But those schools that “rate” do so because they know how to effectively market their goals, they actions, and their successes.  Such rankings are an honor you must seek.  Look at the Newsweek high school rankings.  For months, Jay Matthews has been soliciting recommendations of schools who are doing it right, interesting schools that could be featured as part of the Top High Schools issue.  Part of any school improvement plan, whether it be K-12 or higher ed, should be effective marketing and communications.

Yes, some will say it sends the wrong message to rank high schools, particularly since most students don’t have a choice where they attend.  And others will agree with the college prezes that IHEs shouldn’t be using USNWR to promote their institutions.  But both can be a valuable communications tool.  And as we look to improve our schools, we can use every piece of data and information we can get, particularly those schools that are doing it right.



 



<a href=”http://technorati.com/claim/tfumsfiijg&#8221; rel=”me”>Technorati Profile</a>

Standing Up to the Anti-NCLB Bullies

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

Eduflack is just sick of NCLB bashing.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it.  How can anyone be against boosting student performance, ensuring that what works is what is used in our classrooms, that teachers are qualified to teach, and that we actually measure how effective we are?  This should be a no-brainer.  Folks should be lining up 100 at a time to ensure that NCLB is implemented with fidelity in their school and in every school across the country.  A high-quality education is the greatest gift anyone can receive.  And everyone should receive it.

That said, I felt a warmness in my heart yesterday when I saw the launch of NCLB Works!  For those who have missed it, check it out at http://www.biz4achievement.org/take_action/support.php.

For now, let’s give the media the benefit of the doubt that they will give the creation of this group the media attention it deserves.  After all, NCLB critics seem to get banner headlines and 20 inches whenever they want to grouse about the law.  Only seems fair that a group with this gravitas, coming together to “reauthorize and strengthen No Child Left Behind,” should garner equal time.

Regardless, the NCLB Works! initiative deserves some early round high marks.  Based on the preliminary stages, it is clear that the group’s organizers get it, at least communications-wise.  Why?

* They assembled a broad coalition of business, policy, civil rights, and community groups, erecting a large tent to show the genuine, large-scale support for NCLB’s goals
* They offer clear messaging.  NCLB Works! has nailed their eight theses to the schoolhouse door.  Clear goals.  Goals that touch multiple constituencies.  Goals that are both achievable and necessary.
* They’re starting to personalize the story.  By gathering and distributing success stories, NCLB Works! is moving this from a debate of researchers to a discussion of the people.  They remember that at the end of the day, NCLB succeeds when kids achieve.

Eduflack gives them a gold star for their communications prep work.  Now let’s see how they perform in the lightning round.  It’s one thing to assemble a strong introduction, as they have.  The real communications challenge is how they move this forward.  How do they boost their ranks of supporters?  How do they get the media and policymakers to take notice and act on their recommendations?  How do they ensure that NCLB is strengthened?  How do they cement NCLB’s legacy as a driver of student improvement and long-term academic success?

Looking at its roster of members, NCLB Works! is definitely up to the rhetorical and political challenge.  And I bet there are many others (including Eduflack) who are willing and eager to raise a flag for the cause.
 

2 + 2 = controversy

Eduflack Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, Math, PR, SBRR

Sometimes, it just isn’t as simple as two plus two.  Case in point, the current brouhaha down in Texas, where the State Board of Education is rejecting the third grade Everyday Mathematics program.  The program currently has 20 percent marketshare in Texas, and its been credited with turning around the math scores in New York City’s public schools.  Despite that, Texas is expelling the program, citing its failure to prepare kids for college.

The full story is in the New York Sun — http://www.nysun.com/article/66711 — courtesy of <a href="http://www.educationnews.org.

Texas”>www.educationnews.org.

Texas educators should be allowed to do what they think is right for Texas students.  Just because it works in New York or anywhere else doesn’t mean it will work in the Lone Star State.  Sometimes, what happens in New York needs to stay in New York.

Be clear, we do know it is working in New York City.  Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein will clearly tell you that, as will the folks who decided the Broad Prize this year.  And NYC’s math scores have improved since the curriculum was implemented almost five years.  Both opinion and the data seem to point to the effectiveness of the program, at least in the Big Apple.

What makes this interesting, particularly from a communications perspective, is WHY folks are standing up in opposition to Everyday Mathematics.  It comes down to two issues — rigor and readiness.

Rigor, of course, is the new buzz word.  Here at the end of 2007, it is now being used in place of scientifically or evidence based.  Called progressive or fuzzy, Everyday Math is getting caught in the crosshairs of the math wars (a far more dastardly battle than any reading war skirmish).  Funny that, since it comes from McGraw Hill, the publisher usually beaten up for its overemphasis on research and methodology for its Open Court reading programs.

Regardless, the U.S. Department of Education, according to the Sun, judged “Everyday Math more effective than some more traditional programs but calling its impact still just “potentially” positive.”  So it must have some rigor to pass IES’ WWC filters.

So we move on to readiness.  The public criticism is that Everyday Math is not preparing kids for college.  Some Texas officials rejected it because the book doesn’t include multiplication tables.  And an NYU computer science professor has attacked the curriculum for not preparing kids for the types of college courses he teaches.

Eduflack is the first to recognize that college readiness is all the rage these days.  But how many of our third graders are planning on matriculating to postsecondary institutions this coming fall?  Are third-grade math courses designed to prepare us for the rigors of college, or the rigors of middle school?

Yes, states and school districts should be given the flexibility to do what is best for their students.  Even in NYC, Klein has provided waivers to those schools looking to use an alternative elementary school math curriculum.  But when we attack third grade textbooks on the college readiness issue, aren’t we starting to play Chicken Little?

College readiness is an important, even a critical, issue for our nation’s public schools.  But if we use it as a rhetorical strawman to turn back each and every program, curriculum, and initiative we oppose, we remove the soul and value of the issue.  Sure, everything from preK on in some way gets our kids ready for college.  They are building blocks of learning.  Does this now mean that if don’t provide our kindergartners with phonics and phonemic awareness, we are not effectively preparing them for college?  Technically, yes, but rhetorically, of course not.

Students become math-ready for college by taking Algebra, Algebra II, geometry, and trig in their middle and high schools.  Third grade prepares some of the building blocks to get there, but even the most successful, beyond this world third-grade curriculum will not make today’s average nine-year-old college ready.  It doesn’t take a math Ph.D. to see that.

The Texas State Board of Education should be making sure that its elementary school mathbooks are providing the foundations every kid needs to succeed.  If not, stand up and say so and propose a better solution.  If Everyday Math isn’t cutting it for Texas kids, just say it isn’t the best choice for Texas classrooms.  That’s the Board’s prerogative and their responsibility.  But do it for the right reasons.  Otherwise, we aren’t too far from hearing that this Play-Doh may not be a college-ready supplemental learning tool.
 

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?