Kudos to Inside Higher Ed’s Scott Jaschik for today’s piece on how the 18 active 2008 presidential candidates are talking about education — primarily higher education. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/16/election If the early results are any indication, it seems that college access and student loans are THE message with regard to education platforms.
Why?
* It is easy to define. Most Americans understand the value of a college education. They know college is expensive. They know student loans are available. These are terms of issues the average voter understands and can relate to.
* It’s a hot PR topic. The New York State Attorney General has made student loans (and student lender relationships) the scandal of the day. It is in the news, it is the focus of congressional hearings. From a communications standpoint, it is the current wave that most need to at least test out.
* It’s relatable. The rich can afford to go to any college. Funny thing is, most Americans perceive themselves as being in the middle class, even if demographically they are not. When you start talking about fairness and ensuring the middle class have access and funding to attend the college of their choice. When those swing voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Florida and the like here the argument that we need to make college more affordable for the average American, they think the candidates are talking to them.
What’s missing, though, is an equally passionate debate on the education continuum. Postsecondary education is important for virtually every student in America. But what will the candidates do to ensure that students are prepared for college? How will they deal with the 1.1 million high school dropouts each year? How about the 30-50% of college students who have to take remedial courses to get up to speed? And how will they ensure that students are gaining knowledge and skills related to what they want to do with their lives?
The general silence on K-12 issues at this stage of the presidential campaigns can only mean one of two things. Either all candidates agree that NCLB is essentially steering us in the right direction, and requires only the moderate tinkering Congress and its influencers are discussing or they simply don’t have answers (or even thoughts) on how to further improve primary and secondary education in the United States.
Unfortunately, it is probably the latter, and not the former. So I’ve got three pieces of advice for the candidates, Democrat and Republican, to remember when crafting their messages:
* As in generations past, we all want to see our kids do better than us. The key to that is education. Making sure they are achieving at grade level by fourth grade. Instilling independent thinking in the middle grades. And advocating for both rigor and relevance in high school. Success requires an education continuum, not just a college degree.
* K-12 education touches every U.S. citizen. We all went to school. We all pay taxes to support our schools. We all have or know of children in the schools. Promise us you will ensure that those kids are getting the best and that our taxes are being well spent. And tell us how you will measure it and hold policymakers and schools and teachers accountable.
* Education is not just a learning issue, it is a work issue. Too many people put school in one bucket, career in the other. A strong K-12 education is necessary to a strong, effective workforce. Whether you be wearing a blue or a white collar, you need core reading, math, problem solving, and teamwork skills to succeed. Want a good job, you need a good education. And it is up to the President, the Congress, the Governors, the Mayors, and the Superintendents to ensure that our schools are delivering such an education. It is the only way to truly keep our economy, and our nation, strong.
Now is the stage of the campaign where candidates start telling us what they stand for and what they believe in. And their are few issues that define character and a campaign than education and education improvement. Here’s wishing these ideas start making their way into stump speeches and campaign commercials.
higher ed
Teacher Shortage?
Hyperbole is an important tool in any communicator’s toolbox. We love to paint dire pictures, stories that require revolutionary change, monumental reforms, and “no choice but …” solutions. Such storytelling is masterfully done when we talk about teachers in the classroom. For years now, talks about teacher shortages have resulted in alternative certification policies, pay raises, and serious discussions about pre-service and in-service educator requirements.
Case in point — the following article from West Virginia’s Charleston Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007042333/Officials-debate-coming-teacher-shortage/
In it, we read about concerns that too many teachers are facing retirement. Too few new teachers are entering the classroom. The only solution — our schools need more money to pay teachers.
I’m all for giving effective teachers a great wage for a job well done. As I’ve said before, there is are few jobs as important, and as difficult, as a classroom teacher. But continued threats of looming teacher shortages, in an attempt to garner increases in pay, can ultimately have the reverse effect. You cry wolf too many times, and soon the taxpayers are wondering where all of their money is going, particularly if student test scores remain stagnant.
Let’s be honest. With all of our past teacher “shortages,” have there ever been instances where a growing number of classrooms were without teachers, long term? Where eager-faced students looked forward, and found no teacher standing there? Where kids were hungry for knowledge, but no one was there to feed them? Of course not.
If there were, that would be an incredibly compelling visual to communicate impending teacher shortages. Real classrooms without teachers. Students without mentors. Schools without leaders. But that doesn’t happen. At the end of the day, our schools figure out a solution, ensuring that no child is left without an actual teacher. It isn’t necessarily easy, but one of the few things we can count on is a teacher in every classroom.
Ultimately, the public debate should focus on a shortage of effective teachers in our schools. How do we get those teachers who are successful in improving student achievement in front of those classrooms? How do we equip colleges of education to prepare their prospective teachers for the rigors and expectations of the classroom? How do we help principals, parents, and community leaders understand the qualities, measures, and commitment embodied in effective teachers?
That is the story worth telling. Seeking additional funds for teacher pay? Tell us how increased salaries will be used to ensure that teachers have the skills, tools, and motivation to effective boost student achievement in the classrooms. That story is one virtually any state or local official can embrace, and one that any right-minded taxpayer would eagerly invest in.
Wither DC?
Yesterday, DC Public Schools announced “major” changes to their high school curriculum. At a time when high schools across the country are focusing on improving rigor, offering college credits through early colleges, and holding schools accountable for preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s jobs, DCPS has decided to take a slightly different tact — devalue high school by letting students choose a four or five year track for completion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602044.html?sub=AR
About a week after it was announced DC was receiving $122 million to improve its schools, yesterday DCPS officials send a clear signal their students are not up to the challenge. Every state in the nation has signed on to the National Governors Association’s graduation rate compact — including a formula built on the agreement that high school is a four-year experience. But it seems DCPS isn’t quite up to the national standard.
The rhetorical meaning of this announcement is earth shattering. After decades of sentiment that DCPS is lagging behind its neighbors in Virginia and Maryland, DC schools has now sung from the mountain tops that DC students can’t measure up. High school students can decide if they feel they are up for the four-year plan or the five-year plan (and for giggles, they threw in a three-year plan as well).
While, in the words of DCPS spokesperson Audrey Williams (as appearing in the Examiner) this announcement means DCPS students can learn in a “time frame they feel comfortable in,” the words say far more to those looking to improve our nation’s high schools. While requiring four years of math, English, science, and social studies, DCPS does not believe its students can do it in expected four years.
What else is it saying?
* Many DCPS students are not up to the rigorous curriculum soon coming to them courtesy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
* DCPS doesn’t believe its teachers are to up to effectively teaching all the students in the system
* Students struggling to demonstrate proficiency will now decide how long they want to stay in high school
* DCPS isn’t up to fulfilling the same graduation rate compact every state in the union has endorsed
* DC residents will now start high school with a leg down on their neighboring school districts
If DC is any indication, it is no wonder that a recent NSBA survey shows that one in four urban teachers don’t believe their students will succeed in college. These teachers have given up on their students before they ever step into the classroom.
Now is the time for DC parents, teachers, and students to stand up and say NO. If the intention is to boost college graduation rates for DC students, the focus should be on a rigorous curriculum that prepares students for the challenges and opportunities of college. What’s next — five years of high school leading to six or seven years of college?
While well meaning, DCPS’ announcement sends the wrong message to all stakeholders looking to improve DC’s schools. DCPS’ public focus should be on rigor, preparedness, relevance, and focus. Fifth-year seniors should be the rare exception, not an easy-to-make choice.
Higher Ed Reform, The Saga Continues
Inside Higher Ed (www.insidehighered.com) today was good enough to share the list of the 200 or so individuals who will all be attending Secretary Spellings’ Higher Education Summit. (http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/20/summit) The initial grumbling, at least that that Inside Higher Ed is hearing, is that faculty members and faculty unions are not represented. No shock there, faculty often grumble if there is a party and their invite is lost in the mail.
What disappoints me is the absence of communicators on the expected attendee list. Yes, the government relations/lobbying side of higher education is represented, as it should be. But if the reforms proposed by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education are to be effectively implemented (and implemented in a timeframe that may affect those students today in high school, or junior high school) there should be some full-time, proven-effective communicators around the table (or at least in the seats behind the table).
There are some great minds that will be sitting around the table with Secretary Spellings. Individuals who have successfully taken on reform initiatives and have made a lasting difference in the quality and impact of their institutions or organizations. And each and every one of them can tell you that effective communications played an important role in that success.
Undoubtedly, many attendees will take the content of the summit back home with them, relaying it to their communications staffers and identifying ways to do what they can to move recommendations and reforms forward. But successful communications requires giving PR a seat at the table, not a summary after the fact.
I assume my invite to the summit was also lost in the mail, but here are my reccs:
* Focus on the ultimate impact — Who are these reforms designed to help? How will they see that help? When will they see it? How can we put a face on higher education reform? Discussion must move beyond structural and procedural changes and focus on the impact it will have on our communities.
* Define “what’s in it for me” — IHE presidents will be seen as true leaders. The business community will gain the pipeline of qualified workers they seek. Community leaders will have community members coming back to improve their neighborhoods. Parents will see their children do better than they have. Students will achieve their dreams. Every stakeholder in the process has a role. We’ll ask all to do something different. Let’s demonstrate the result of that change in behavior. If we want stakeholders to help implement change, we need to show the benefits to them and their core constituency
* There is no “one size fits all” — There is no simple way to trigger reform across all corners of higher education. While our ultimate goal may be singular, each audience needs to hear it a different way and be asked to do a specific thing. Don’t try to speak in a universal voice. Speak to administrators as administrators. Faculty as faculty. Students as students. Business as business. It demonstrates respect and understanding for the audience, and gets us to the goal faster.
* Build a big tent — Today’s faculty grumbling should tell us something. Not only do we need to define roles, we need to build an effort that offers everyone an opportunity to participate in reform. Many audiences may choose not to join in. They may oppose the recommendations, lack support among their own constituencies, or just not want to commit the time and effort to the cause. Give them access to the party now, and it is harder for them to oppose the end result later.
The cause is noble. The recommendations are actionable. The major players are at the table. Now is the time to unleash the communications dogs and let them soften the ground for meaningful higher ed reform.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 