AYP

Powerful Rhetoric on Vouchers

Eduflack AYP, NCLB, President Bush, vouchers

For years now, vouchers have been a highly controversial topic in education reform.  Proponents see vouchers as a way to deal with failing schools, giving families a chance for a better education and increased opportunity.  Opponents see it as taking funds from our public schools, further reducing the dollars available for struggling schools to right their ships.

As a nation, we’ve seen pockets of success on the voucher movement.  Cities like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington, DC have staked much of their reform on the program.  And Florida has implemented several statewide voucher systems, including one for special education.  We’ve seen initial success, to a degree, while many continue to wait to see the long-term impact.

While the wait continues, the language continues to evolve.  Vouchers evolved into school choice.  Such language moved the discussion from one of finances to one of family choice.  After all, what could be more important than a family deciding what school was best for their child, and then sending them there.

During last night’s State of the Union address, we saw the language evolve even further.  President Bush has long been a supporter of vouchers.  His Administration pushed hard to get the Washington DC voucher program into place in during his first term.  Initial research shows that the DC program has had a positive impact from the start.  In fact, so many inner-city students were choosing to use their vouchers to attend DC Catholic schools that the Archdiocese is now looking to convert a significant number of those schools into charters to allow even more students to be educated at the school of their choice.

So how does the President build on his initial DC voucher investment?  First, he calls for $300 million to expand school choice across the nation.  Then, he crowns the initiative with a new name — Pell Grants for Kids.

The President’s words are worth revisiting, as they set a new tone and new playing field for the debate on school choice.  Even the most liberal of Democrats are firm supporters of the original Pell Grants, designed to help low-income students attend college.  How, then, can they oppose the idea of Pell Grants for Kids, a scholarship program that lets low-income families send their kids to good schools?  It was a bold move, and a bold choice of words, since one can’t imagine that former U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell would ever put his name on an educational program from this President.  Yet, somehow, it all works.

Let’s look at the President’s actual remarks:

“We must also do more to help children when their schools do not measure up. Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our nation’s capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other nonpublic schools.

Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America’s inner cities. So I will convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening these lifelines of learning.


And to open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential.


Together, we’ve expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply the same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.” 

Over the next few days, we’ll hear how the President played small ball in his SOTU, discussing manageable ideas without swinging for a “we will land on the moon” moment.  And we all expected very little in terms of education policy in the speech.  Yes, he called for the reauthorization of NCLB, touting its results to date and its bipartisan foundations.  But the true education moment was the announcement of Pell Grants for Kids.  Who is opposed to liberating poor children trapped in failing schools?  Who doesn’t want kids to realize their full potential?  Who doesn’t want to support opportunity and hope?

Voucher opponents will likely come out swinging against the proposal, citing flaws in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program and again bemoaning taking money from well-meaning public schools and handing it to faith-based and nonpublic schools.  But Bush’s words shift this from a policy debate of voucher advocates and opponents to a discussion of families and community leaders of options and pathways to help low-income students in struggling schools.  It moves this from inside baseball to a game the whole community can play in.

We’ll have to wait and see if “Pell Grants for Kids” sticks as a brand and a call to arms for vouchers in 2008.  But it definitely has potential.   

Grading the Schools

Eduflack AYP, Bloomberg, national standards, Students

Back in November, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg released a report card grading all of the city’s public schools.  It was a bold move at the time, though the impact of grading the schools took a few months to come to a boil.  Now we are seeing it, as New York parents are now taking exception with the grades their neighborhood schools received.

That should come as no surprise.  As Eduflack has written previously, we all want to believe our own schools are doing just fine, even if the system around it may be falling apart.  We believe in our teachers and our administrators, taking solace that our child is receiving a top-notch education, regardless of the conditions around us.

When Bloomberg announced the grades, he did so in an attempt to do something about underperforming schools.  And we can’t do anything about such schools if we don’t first identify them.  So he issued them grades, grades based on student achievement.  After all, shouldn’t we measure our schools based on how well they do their primary job — educating our kids?

To be expected, the critics are now hitting back against Bloomberg and his report cards.  It took a little time, but we are now hearing the hollow refrains of high-stakes testing, teaching to the test, and abandoning “non-essential” courses like art, music, and the like.  Such grading must be unfair because it doesn’t align with our popular thinking.

Let there be no doubt, we should be grading our schools.  Every parent has the right to know if their school is achieving and if their school compares with the school across town, across the state, or across the country.  Every student has the right to an effective education, and education as good as any other student is getting.  Every superintendent has the right to know how his schools compare to each other, and which are getting it done and which need additional help, support, and direction.  And every taxpayer has the right to know that our tax dollars are going to effective education and demonstrable student achievement.

So how do we measure that?  What’s the most effective rubric to get the job done?  And more importantly, if Bloomberg’s way is wrong, what is right? 

It all comes down to whether we grade the process or the outcomes.  Measures like parental involvement, per-pupil expenditure, class size, teacher experience, tutoring programs, transfers, grade promotion, and such are all good process measures.  But we can check the box on all of those and more, and still be left with a failing school.  it is frustrating, yes, but true.  We can do it all “right,” and still not demonstrate results.  What good is that?

Which gets us back to the Bloomberg formula of outcome-based grading.  It sends a strong message to virtually every stakeholder audience in a school district to say we measure our schools based on student achievement.  Our schools (and our teachers) succeed when our kids do.  How we get there is important, sure, but our primary objective is where we went.  Did our kids learn what is necessary to succeed in school and in life?  If not, our schools aren’t doing as good a job as they should.  There is room for improvement.

We can quibble about what tests should be used to grade a school, whether there are multiple quantitative measures and such.  We can dream of a national standard by which every school in the country is graded.  We can even look to models like Quality Counts or Newsweek and US News & World Report’s top high schools rubrics.  But we all should agree that our schools should be evaluated, graded, compared, and appropriately improved.

If you have a better idea for determining whether our schools are effective or not, I’m all ears.  I’m sure there are folks far smarter than I who are exploring such issues at think tanks, NFPs, and universities across the country.  But until we have a better way, shouldn’t we use the best way we have now?  Let’s grade our schools, and let them figure out how to earn the extra credit and do the make-up work necessary so they all achieve. 

Blame the Parents?

Eduflack AYP, DCPS, Michelle Rhee, Students

Who, exactly, is at fault for poorly performing schools?  Based on what we read and hear and see in the media, there seems to be more than enough blame to go around.  The feds are at fault for high-stakes testing.  The state is at fault for inadequate funding.  School districts are at fault for a host of reasons.  And teachers are to blame for not teaching the right things or understanding the kids or lacking the qualification to lead the classroom.

It isn’t every day that we put the blame on another primary stakeholder in the learning process — the parents.  For decades, we have seen moms and dads wash their hands of what happens behind the schoolhouse doors.  They get their kids to school.  It is up to everyone else to do the teaching and ensure the kids are learning, retaining, and applying.

That’s what makes today’s Washington Post poll so interesting.  There are few that will come to the defense of DC Public Schools in general.  Seven in 10 surveyed believe DC public schools are inadequate.  Surprisingly, 76 percent say that parents are to blame.  See the full story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002386.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008012100219

Eduflack isn’t one who celebrates the blame game.  But DC residents must be applauded for speaking truth.  DCPS spends more dollars per student than most school districts in this country.  They’ve implemented reform after reform, with few making a lasting impact.  Teachers are run through a grinder, not knowing if they will even be paid month to month. 

Over the weekend, DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee announced a new Saturday tutoring program to help struggling students catch up and succeed in the classroom.  Of course, such programs are not mandatory.  Saturday programs are optional, offering the potential for another great idea to be lost in the execution.

If we are truly going to improve schools like those in DCPS, we need and require increased parental participation.  This means more than getting parents into the schools to complain to teachers and administrators about why their kids can’t do their homework or pass the test.  True parental involvement has mothers, fathers, grandparents, and such involved in the learning process.  They know what’s happening in the classroom.  They ensure their kids are doing their homework.  They identify learning experiences in the home or in the community.  They take responsibility for their kids, and hold them accountable For maximizing their school hours.

Parents are our first teachers and our most consistent ones.  Small kids will pattern their words and actions after what their parents do.  We read because our parents do.  We do our homework because our parents prioritize it.  We bring home good grades because our parents encourage it.  And if they don’t, we don’t care.  

Many of the problems our schools face — rising drop-out rates, limited reading and math skills, truancy, etc. — can all be attributed, in part, to parent apathy.  Eduflack has done a number of focus groups with eighth and ninth graders recently on dropping out.  Student after student said they wouldn’t drop out because their parents won’t let them.  THat’s parental involvement.  It may come in the form of carrot or stick, but it makes a difference.

Parents are key to improving our schools, improving our community, and boosting student achievement.  Thankfully, citizens in our nation’s capital now recognize that.  Identification is the first step.  The challenge now, is for DCPS to take this data and put it into action.  If we ID parent apathy as a root of DCPS problems, what do we do to boost parental involvement?  Once Chancellor Rhee answers that question, she may have a winning strategy for improving the schools, engaging the public and building support and interest for what is happening in each and every schoolhouse in the District. 

Grade the Parents!

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NAEP, NCLB

There seems to be a little battle brewing in Connecticut over report cards in Manchester School District.  What makes this fight a little different from the norm is that these report cards are intended for parents, not for students.  A member of the school board, Republican Steven Edwards, is calling for report cards for parents, evaluating them on everything from their children’s homework to appropriate dress to breakfast.

The local PTA, along with the school district itself, is opposed to the idea, believing that any issues can just be resolved if parents had more face time with teachers.  When asked what she would think if parent report cards were put in place, the president of the PTA (according to Fox News) said: “I’d be ticked … They’re telling you what to do with your kid.”  (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306003,00.html)

What’s so wrong with that?  Why shouldn’t the schools instruct parents on what they can do to increase the effectiveness of classroom time?  And more importantly, what message are we sending with such strong opposition to looking at the parent’s role in student achievement?

In 2007, we assess virtually everyone.  Students take tests to judge their abilities and competencies.  They are compared to other students in the district, state, nation, and world.  They take multiple assessments each academic year, and we take those numbers seriously.

Likewise, we use that student data and other measures to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers.  In our necessary push for qualified, effective teachers, we regularly judge our teachers.  Fairly or unfairly, our teachers are measured by the performance of their students.  Parents use that report card to help select teachers or schools for their kids, and some school districts use that report card to determine performance bonuses.

And we keep moving up the chain.  We assemble report cards on our schools and school districts, measuring them again other schools and districts.  Each year, we get national report cards on how our states measure up compared to our neighbors, our peers, and such.

Education is all about report cards.  They measure achievement.  They measure progress to date.  They are a constant in the process that we expect, depend on, and use as a tool for improvement.

So it only seems natural that report cards could and should be extended to parents.  We know that parents are just as important an influence, if not more so, on their kids’ academic achievement as teachers.  A parent is a child’s first teacher, and is often one of the last.  And like it or not, children model their behaviors after their parents and do what they say.

In the perfect world, parents and teachers should be working together, and assessed together.  It shouldn’t be an adversarial relationship, nor should it be a once a year meeting for 20 minutes.  Parents should want to be engaged in what is happening in the classroom and should monitor closely.  And the schools should be able to help parents improve the learning time at home, making sure that all students have the support and encouragement they need to maximize their time behind the schoolhouse doors.  Such a dynamic is the quickest, easiest path to opportunity for all students.

Parental influence should lend itself to some sort of accountability.  But the status quo will continue to fight the concept.  And that’s a real shame.  As long as the measurement tool is fair, and not subjective, parents should embrace a report card.  We boast when we coach our child’s sports team.  We proudly display our student’s honor roll bumper sticker.  We should equally embrace a great report card showing we are a key influencer in our kid’s school success.  

We tell our kids grades matter.  We tell them they have to work hard for high marks.  Maybe we need to lead by example, and let them see us working hard for the gold star on the parent’s report card.  Just imagine all those kids who can ride around on their bikes, with bumper stickers declaring, “My Mom is on the Parent’s Honor Roll.”
  

“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.


 

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?

Putting the Math Cart Before the Counting Horse

Eduflack AYP, Math, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

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.

“State” the Case

Eduflack AYP, HQT, NCLB

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

Eduflack AYP, NCLB, President Bush, Spellings

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.

To Veto is to Improve

Eduflack AYP, HQT, NAEP, NCLB, President Bush, Reading First, Spellings

I’d like to think that everything I’ve learned about the legislative process, I learned from Saturday morning cartoons (and those five years working on Capitol Hill, I guess).  Just about everyone from my generation should know how a bill becomes a law, even if it is just from remembering Schoolhouse Rock.  But where is our song about the meaning of vetoing one’s signature domestic policy bill?

For those who missed it, President Bush, at his year-end briefing yesterday, tossed the biggest rhetorical softball possible to his critics and to those on the NCLB fence.  The President states that if he gets an NCLB reauthorization that weakens the law, he would veto it.

We may talk about lines in the sand, but Bush has now drawn a rhetorical Grand Canyon.  As other policymakers are debating multiple measures and increased funding and escape clauses, the President stands clear and emphatic in his position.  It’s improvement, or it is nothing at all.

This is an extremely bold stance from a lame duck president with low national approval rankings and little record on education these past couple of years.  And it is just the sort of bold statement the President needed to make if he is to save the one potential legacy piece of his domestic agenda.

With such a strong statement (albeit in a relatively throw-away media session), 2008 could be an interesting one, if we can get NCLB to the front of the policy agenda.  Why?

* Senator Kennedy continues to explore reforms to NCLB, and it is clear the law will change.  The big question is whether the law is strengthened, the law is watered down, or the law is tabled until a new president can put his imprint on the nation’s K-12 law.

* Advocates of the law have regained their stride.  For much of the year, NCLB critics have dominated the debate.  But we are starting to see cracks.  Earlier this week, Governors Thompson and Barnes of Aspen’s NCLB Commission had their oped on the law printed in The Washington Times.  Ed in 08 continues to push on the hows and whys presidential candidates should stand up to strengthen our nation’s commitment to K-12. 

* Recent NAEP and PISA scores have many talking about how we continue to improve the quality and measurement of education.  There is a growing hunger for proven, long-term improvement.

For years, Eduflack has opined on how NCLB could serve as President Bush’s true domestic policy legacy.  The changes he has made in how we teach, how we use research, what we expect of our teachers, and how we measure our schools will be with us for a long time.  The federal dollars spent on K-12 have never been higher.  And he has given federal education issues a singular voice under the banner of 2008.  Like it or not, the relationship between the federal government to K-12 public education is vastly different today compared to 2001.  And that relationship shows a vision from which Bush and his education team have never wavered, no matter the criticism, attack, or obstacle.

But if the President wants that legacy, if he wants an NCLB reauthorization he can sign, he needs to be both bold and proactive moving forward.  Now is the time for Bush (and Spellings) to step forward and clearly articulate those improvements they would agree to and those improvements that result in a better, stronger NCLB.

Like what?
* Provide schools and districts more flexibility to meet AYP, assuming their actions follow the spirit of the law
* Demand full funding for Reading First, while offering stringent oversight protections to ensure the funds are being used only on “gold standard” interventions with unquestioned research
* Take states to task for weakening their state standards just so they can claim proficiency on state tests
* Amend the HQT provisions to include provisions for effective teaching
* Ensure that real educators, policymakers, and the business community are involved in implementing NCLB 2.0 and evaluating its effectiveness
* Remind us of the primary audience for NCLB.  Yes, teachers and counselors and researchers are important.  But our primary focus is the student — how do we use the law to ensure all students are provided a high-quality education that prepares them for the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the 21st century.

I’m just an eduflack.  I’m sure there are a number of other ways we can strengthen the law, doing so in a way that will gain the President’s signature and the education community’s endorsement.  Mr. President, consider it my Christmas present to you.  No need for a thank you card, and no reason to consider returning it.