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.
HQT
A “Broader Yardstick”
Yesterday’s Washington Post continued the public debate on how we measure the efficacy of our public schools. Under a headline of “Calls Grow for a Broader Yardstick for Schools,” the Post’s Maria Glod fan the flames of high-stakes testing and NCLB mandates. But if we peel back the clamoring and positioning, what is the Post really poking at? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/15/AR2007121501747.html
Eduflack will try to look past the American Society of Civil Engineers’ calls for national science testing. Last I saw, science was one of the three subjects NCLB is slated to test, with those fourth through eighth grade exams coming online shortly. There’s one demand that has already been met.
So let’s look at the broader picture. NEA’s Reg Weaver is right when he says student success should be more than just one test score. And CCSSO’s Michael Casserly is dead-on when he states that different audiences have different answers to the question of how to best measure our K-12 schools. But instead of looking at “multiple measures” and examining how one state’s proficiency measures stand up to another’s, there has to be a simple way. Oh, wait, there is — national standards.
If we look at the hand-ringing in the Post piece and in public and private discussions these past few years about accountability and the measurement of student, teacher, and school achievement, there is rarely discussion of national standards. It’s as if it is the third rail of education reform (or maybe the 3 1/3 rail, after teacher accountability). We’re afraid to talk about national standards, not knowing what might be behind the curtain if we allow that show to truly take the stage.
But isn’t national standards the rhetorical solution to all of these criticisms?
* It offers a bold solution that demonstrates that we, as a nation, are committed to strengthening our schools and ensuring our students have the skills they need to succeed in the workplace and the community
* It provides a strong fix to the notion that some states may be lowering their standards to appear proficient
* It states that every child, regardless of their home town or economic standing, has the right to a strong, proven effective public education
* It brings equality to our expectations and measurement of classroom teachers, whether they be in urban, suburban or rural settings
* It may just be the only “fair” approach to measuring our schools – with one common yardstick
Earlier this year, Gov. Roy Romer — now heading Strong American Schools — suggested we bring together many of the nation’s top governors and let them hatch the plan for adopting national education standards. Eduflack said it then, and he’ll say it again, it is a visionary approach that may be just what the ed reform community is in search of. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/05/the-next-great-ed-reform-idea.aspx
Most still bristle at the notion of national education standards. We reflect on the belief that education is a local issue, left to town councils and local selectmen. While that may have been true a century or so ago, results from NAEP and PISA tell us a very different story. If we are to maintain a thriving economy, if we are to be home to the world’s top industry and innovative thinking, we need to get serious about how we measure our successes. It just doesn’t get more serious that national standards.
The Blame Game, Iowa and Hollywood Style
We may not be all that adept at determining solutions for improving our nation’s public schools, but we certainly know how to assign blame. Case in point this week, conservatives in the GOP presidential debates and liberals on the TV show “Boston Legal.”
If you missed it, earlier this week the Republican candidates for president had yet another debate. At this one, multiple presidential hopefuls attacked the NEA as the primary obstacle to education reform. Tagging the teachers unions as the defenders of a broken school system, these Republicans (yes, I’m talking about you Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson) seem to think that if the NEA would just step back and allow school choice, all would be made right in our K-12 schools.
On the flip side, Boston Legal ran a plotline of a high-achieving high school student stealing her school’s standardized tests to spotlight the inadequacies of high-stakes testing. Lines like standardized tests are producing a school of “idiots” and this is all the fault of the “No Child Left Behind nazis” certainly makes for good television. Throw in a sobbing staffer from National Geographic bemoaning student mapping abilities, a principal believing NCLB is denying him the ability to teach what students need, and a student believing she is being denied a quality education at a predominantly white high school in Boston, and we see how NCLB can become must-see prime time TV viewing.
What does it all mean? We still aren’t taking education seriously as a topic for discussion, debate, and thought. Instead of the GOP discussing the merits of school choice and the impact it has had on disadvantaged youth or those from low-performing schools, we seek to tar the NEA. Then we use NCLB as a punchline, sandwiched between suing the National Guard for failing to stop a flood and a former teen madame. We’ve resorted to using education reform as an applause line or a punchline, take your pick. (Don’t believe me, look at a recent Family Guy cartoon, that also focused on NCLB and AYP.)
We’re continuing to blame others for our educational problems, rather than offer solutions where we take responsibility. As Mitt Romney is attacking the NEA, can’t he also be blamed for the fictitious school failures in Boston Legal. After all, these were his schools 11 months ago. Where are the Romney and Thompson’s K-12 education plans? What will they do to fix the problems? How are they going to expand school choice? How will they get effective teachers in the classroom, and ineffective teachers out? And what are they going to do to get Candice Bergen’s sure to be Wellesley College-bound grand-daughter to stop destroying the tests and ensure that her high school is accurately measured? (Interestingly, Romney was actually mentioned on the program, while Massachusetts’ current education governor, Deval Patrick, was not.)
The only positive out of all this, I suppose, is that NCLB is known well enough as a brand that it can stand as a story line on a top prime-time television program, without needing explanation or set-up. As silly as blaming NCLB for our high school woes may be, those TV producers assume that their viewers know NCLB, know the issues around AYP and high-stakes testing, and will buy into the concerns over teaching to the test and preparing students for the challenges of the future. Maybe the NCLB brand name is better recognized than Eduflack has assumed.
As we close out the pop reference portion of today’s program, it all comes back to our of Eduflack’s favorite movies of recent years, Thank You For Smoking. In the movie, the lead character — a tobacco industry lobbyist — explains the lobbying game to his son. It isn’t about proving you are right, he opines, it is about proving your opponent is wrong. If your opponent is wrong, the electorate has not choice but to assume you must then be right.
Clearly, this is what we are seeing these days in education reform. Few are stepping up to show us how they are right and what they will do to approve it. Instead, we’re giftwrapping blame and defending bad behavior by attacking.
I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to change the channel. I’ll read the blogs and the websites and the newspapers for my news and education reform information. I want mindless bubblegum entertainment on my TV programs. Let’s leave the social commentary to the Sunday morning talk shows and the news channels I never seem to reach, up past ESPN and Noggin on my cable box.
Pundits Vs. Analysts on Ed
Is it or isn’t it? Yesterday, the Ed in 08 folks held a forum up in New Hampshire, offering an impressive list of “pundits” discussing how education was becoming a key issue for the upcoming presidential elections. Today, This Week in Education has a link to a CNS News story, where their “analysts” say education will not be a significant issue in 2008. (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11560325/) Who’s right? And does it matter?
At the end of the day, they are probably both right. Education may be a top five issue when it comes to voter concerns, but it simply is not an issue that people vote on, particularly for presidential elections. We’ll vote on the war. On healthcare. On the general economy. Even for a balanced budget. But education is viewed as a local issue. The president may carry a rhetorical stick, but the vast majority of reforms, improvements and dollars are coming from state and local sources. Governors and mayors and city councils get elected on education issues. Not presidents. As a result, education won’t be a significant issue in 2008.
But it can become a key issue in differentiating some of the presidential candidates (and that’s likely Ed in 08’s hope). To date, Obama has done the most with the issue, calling for merit pay before the NEA and offering a fairly comprehensive education agenda earlier this month. Others have dabbled in issues like preK or college loans. Most have come out strongly against NCLB (even in GOP circles), particularly when it comes to testing. That leaves a great deal of room to play in, position, and orate.
For months now, folks have been waiting for Ed in 08 to seize the podium as it intended this past spring, and really make the case for national leadership in education reform. The organization has set a goal of advocating for three key issues with presidential candidates — 1) agreement on American education standards; 2) effective teachers in every classroom; and 3) more time and support for student learning. Hardly the call to action that makes hearts skip a beat and convinces the citizenry to slay dragons with a butter knife.
Democrats want to advocate for education policy that aligns with the wishes and dreams of the NEA and AFT. Republicans want to return education issues to the localities. That leaves a wide lane for bold, strong action and rhetoric.
What would Eduflack be screaming on the stump?
1) A high school diploma is a non-negotiable that every student needs to obtain a meaningful job.
2) In the 21st century, every student needs some form of postsecondary education, be it community college, CTE training, or four-year institution. A well-paying career requires postsec ed.
3) K-12 is no longer just an education issue. It is an economic development issue. If we want economic development, if we want good jobs, if we want job growth in our community, we need a strong K-12 system (and a strong PK-16 system would be even better).
4) Teaching is a hard job. We need to make sure every classroom has a proven effective teacher, and that teacher has the support he or she needs to do the job (see Aspen’s Commission on NCLB for the blueprint on this one)
5) We only teach what works. Proven effective rules the day. Curriculum, teachers, and students must all show their worth and must demonstrate success. The era of silver-bullet education and quick fixes is over. It takes real work and proven effective instruction to do the job.
6) Education reform is a shared responsibility. From the fed to the locality. From teachers to parents. From the CBOs to the business community. We all have a role, and an obligation, in improving our public schools.
7) We need to publicize the successes. We spend too much time talking about what’s going wrong in our schools. We need to provide the megaphone to what is working, and use it a teaching and modeling tool. We all benefit when we see what schools like ours and kids like our are doing to succeed. And there’s a lot of good happening in our schools.
Yes, such messages are bound to offend some. But isn’t that what bold communication is all about? If we want to protect the status quo, we can speak in vague generalities with words that have muddled meaning and virtually no impact. Improvement is reform. Reform is change. Change is rocking the boat.
For the past few decades, public education has been home to the status quoers. Look where it has gotten us. If we expect to get real traction on issues like national education standards, performance measures for teachers, expansion of charter schools and school choice, and a number of other reforms and ideas that are thrown about, we need an environment that allows for change. That’s the only way we get education into the top tier of issues for federal elections.
Without doubt, the good people at Ed in 08 have the resources, the experience, and the know how to do this. The snowmen have had their chance to ask the tough questions. Now’s the time to put the candidate’s feet to the fire on what exactly they would do to boost student achievement and educational quality in our public schools. Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the system; we know it better than you. Tell us how your administration will fix it. Please.
If Ed in 08 can get us those answers, then we really have something to talk about.
At the end of the day, they are probably both right. Education may be a top five issue when it comes to voter concerns, but it simply is not an issue that people vote on, particularly for presidential elections. We’ll vote on the war. On healthcare. On the general economy. Even for a balanced budget. But education is viewed as a local issue. The president may carry a rhetorical stick, but the vast majority of reforms, improvements and dollars are coming from state and local sources. Governors and mayors and city councils get elected on education issues. Not presidents. As a result, education won’t be a significant issue in 2008.
But it can become a key issue in differentiating some of the presidential candidates (and that’s likely Ed in 08’s hope). To date, Obama has done the most with the issue, calling for merit pay before the NEA and offering a fairly comprehensive education agenda earlier this month. Others have dabbled in issues like preK or college loans. Most have come out strongly against NCLB (even in GOP circles), particularly when it comes to testing. That leaves a great deal of room to play in, position, and orate.
For months now, folks have been waiting for Ed in 08 to seize the podium as it intended this past spring, and really make the case for national leadership in education reform. The organization has set a goal of advocating for three key issues with presidential candidates — 1) agreement on American education standards; 2) effective teachers in every classroom; and 3) more time and support for student learning. Hardly the call to action that makes hearts skip a beat and convinces the citizenry to slay dragons with a butter knife.
Democrats want to advocate for education policy that aligns with the wishes and dreams of the NEA and AFT. Republicans want to return education issues to the localities. That leaves a wide lane for bold, strong action and rhetoric.
What would Eduflack be screaming on the stump?
1) A high school diploma is a non-negotiable that every student needs to obtain a meaningful job.
2) In the 21st century, every student needs some form of postsecondary education, be it community college, CTE training, or four-year institution. A well-paying career requires postsec ed.
3) K-12 is no longer just an education issue. It is an economic development issue. If we want economic development, if we want good jobs, if we want job growth in our community, we need a strong K-12 system (and a strong PK-16 system would be even better).
4) Teaching is a hard job. We need to make sure every classroom has a proven effective teacher, and that teacher has the support he or she needs to do the job (see Aspen’s Commission on NCLB for the blueprint on this one)
5) We only teach what works. Proven effective rules the day. Curriculum, teachers, and students must all show their worth and must demonstrate success. The era of silver-bullet education and quick fixes is over. It takes real work and proven effective instruction to do the job.
6) Education reform is a shared responsibility. From the fed to the locality. From teachers to parents. From the CBOs to the business community. We all have a role, and an obligation, in improving our public schools.
7) We need to publicize the successes. We spend too much time talking about what’s going wrong in our schools. We need to provide the megaphone to what is working, and use it a teaching and modeling tool. We all benefit when we see what schools like ours and kids like our are doing to succeed. And there’s a lot of good happening in our schools.
Yes, such messages are bound to offend some. But isn’t that what bold communication is all about? If we want to protect the status quo, we can speak in vague generalities with words that have muddled meaning and virtually no impact. Improvement is reform. Reform is change. Change is rocking the boat.
For the past few decades, public education has been home to the status quoers. Look where it has gotten us. If we expect to get real traction on issues like national education standards, performance measures for teachers, expansion of charter schools and school choice, and a number of other reforms and ideas that are thrown about, we need an environment that allows for change. That’s the only way we get education into the top tier of issues for federal elections.
Without doubt, the good people at Ed in 08 have the resources, the experience, and the know how to do this. The snowmen have had their chance to ask the tough questions. Now’s the time to put the candidate’s feet to the fire on what exactly they would do to boost student achievement and educational quality in our public schools. Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the system; we know it better than you. Tell us how your administration will fix it. Please.
If Ed in 08 can get us those answers, then we really have something to talk about.
How Not to Make Friends
When Eduflack used to work on Capitol Hill, he was all too knowledgeable about how organizational “score cards” worked. Cast one vote, and the League of Conservation Voters would give you a perfect score. Cast another vote, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses would quickly be investing in the district, working to get your opponent elected.
The one constant in all of this — scorecards were based on votes. The only way to effectively “score” a congressman or senator was the voting record. Yays and nays. No points for abstentions or missed votes. And a quick check of the Congressional Record verified any and all scores.
The National Education Association, though, has decided to change the dynamic. For an organization that seemed almost devoted to protecting the status quo, they are charting new territory in the lobbying front. Earlier this week, it was revealed that NEA is now threatening poor scores on those congressmen who fail to co-sponsor NEA-supported amendments to NCLB reauthorization. Kudos to DFER (www.dfer.org) for shining some sunlight on this situation.
Believe it or not, Eduflack hates to criticize the NEA. Too often, we attack the organization, and some see it as an attack on teachers themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve said it many times — teaching is one of the toughest assignments out there. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and we struggle to bring the profession the respect and recognition it deserves. And at the end of the day, even the most successful curricular program will fail without a good teacher. An effective teacher should be untouchable.
Unfortunately, the NEA often acts like a political monolith, and not like the membership organization for millions of public school teachers that it is. By changing the game, and judging members of Congress based on their co-sponsorships, the NEA is doing a significant disservice to its rank-and-file members. What is NEA saying? Issues like family leave, safe workforce conditions, children’s health, equal protections, environmental safety, student loans, and other such policies important to teachers are now taking a backseat to amendments that will never see the light of day. We don’t even know what NCLB 2.0 will look like, and already NEA is demanding tidings at its altar.
What about those members of the Appropriations Committees, who traditionally do not co-sponsor any bills or legislation? Guess they are anti-teacher. Same goes for the leadership, that often stays out of the amendment fray. They must be against the NEA. And for those members who have an education LA who failed to get the memo who may miss the deadline, looks like they are destined for the NEA hit list.
Without question, the NEA is, and should be, a major force in the development of K-12 policy and K-12 politics. The NEA knows it has the organizational ability, the financial resources, and the grassroots power to influence elections. I, for one, had been most appreciative of the phone banks and volunteer support NEA has provided my bosses in past elections.
NEA’s strong-arming tactics, though, send the wrong message at the wrong time. Yes, NCLB is an important issue for the NEA. But it shouldn’t be the only issue. Instead of scare tactics and threats, NEA should be in the room, with sleeves rolled up, working with Miller and Kennedy and company on how to improve the law. Those improvements don’t come from the flurry of amendments that will never make it to the floor, nor do they come from state-by-state anti-NCLB lawsuits that will never be adjudicated. Improvement comes from negotiation. It comes from partnership. And it comes from a shared commitment to a common goal.
When NCLB was passed, it was heralded as a law to ensure that every child had an opportunity to succeed, both in school and in life. Some of us still believe in that goal, and are still committed to that reality. We should all throw our full efforts into improving opportunity and options for all students. And it takes hard work, not score cards or lists of signatories, to get us there.
The one constant in all of this — scorecards were based on votes. The only way to effectively “score” a congressman or senator was the voting record. Yays and nays. No points for abstentions or missed votes. And a quick check of the Congressional Record verified any and all scores.
The National Education Association, though, has decided to change the dynamic. For an organization that seemed almost devoted to protecting the status quo, they are charting new territory in the lobbying front. Earlier this week, it was revealed that NEA is now threatening poor scores on those congressmen who fail to co-sponsor NEA-supported amendments to NCLB reauthorization. Kudos to DFER (www.dfer.org) for shining some sunlight on this situation.
Believe it or not, Eduflack hates to criticize the NEA. Too often, we attack the organization, and some see it as an attack on teachers themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve said it many times — teaching is one of the toughest assignments out there. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and we struggle to bring the profession the respect and recognition it deserves. And at the end of the day, even the most successful curricular program will fail without a good teacher. An effective teacher should be untouchable.
Unfortunately, the NEA often acts like a political monolith, and not like the membership organization for millions of public school teachers that it is. By changing the game, and judging members of Congress based on their co-sponsorships, the NEA is doing a significant disservice to its rank-and-file members. What is NEA saying? Issues like family leave, safe workforce conditions, children’s health, equal protections, environmental safety, student loans, and other such policies important to teachers are now taking a backseat to amendments that will never see the light of day. We don’t even know what NCLB 2.0 will look like, and already NEA is demanding tidings at its altar.
What about those members of the Appropriations Committees, who traditionally do not co-sponsor any bills or legislation? Guess they are anti-teacher. Same goes for the leadership, that often stays out of the amendment fray. They must be against the NEA. And for those members who have an education LA who failed to get the memo who may miss the deadline, looks like they are destined for the NEA hit list.
Without question, the NEA is, and should be, a major force in the development of K-12 policy and K-12 politics. The NEA knows it has the organizational ability, the financial resources, and the grassroots power to influence elections. I, for one, had been most appreciative of the phone banks and volunteer support NEA has provided my bosses in past elections.
NEA’s strong-arming tactics, though, send the wrong message at the wrong time. Yes, NCLB is an important issue for the NEA. But it shouldn’t be the only issue. Instead of scare tactics and threats, NEA should be in the room, with sleeves rolled up, working with Miller and Kennedy and company on how to improve the law. Those improvements don’t come from the flurry of amendments that will never make it to the floor, nor do they come from state-by-state anti-NCLB lawsuits that will never be adjudicated. Improvement comes from negotiation. It comes from partnership. And it comes from a shared commitment to a common goal.
When NCLB was passed, it was heralded as a law to ensure that every child had an opportunity to succeed, both in school and in life. Some of us still believe in that goal, and are still committed to that reality. We should all throw our full efforts into improving opportunity and options for all students. And it takes hard work, not score cards or lists of signatories, to get us there.
How Quickly We Forget
We all remember that George H.W. Bush (the First) was supposed to an education president. Convening an education summit at Eduflack’s alma mater, Bush brought governors, business leaders, and other influencers together to focus on how to improve American education as we headed into the 21st century.
Then there is Bush II, and his legacy of No Child Left Behind. Like it or not, NCLB will be remembered as the federal government’s largest investment in public education to date, and praised (or demonized) for its focus on research and results-based education.
What about that president in between? You know, that guy named Clinton. Sure, as governor of Arkansas, he was one of the primary leaders at Bush I’s U.Va. summit. But when we think of President Bill Clinton’s domestic policy successes, education doesn’t leap to mind. Instead, we think of a strong economy, a balanced budget, community policing, and other such programs.
So what about President 42 and education? Eduflack was down in Little Rock, Arkansas this week, and had to make a stop at the Clinton Presidential Library. I’m just a sucker for presidential libraries, dating back to my father’s involvement in the development of the JFK Library in Boston.
At the Clinton Center, they’ve focused on eight or so key issues that defined the Clinton Administration … and one of those issues is education. (In fact, the education alcove is larger than the section dedicated to the role of Vice President Al Gore in the eight-year administration.)
Clinton’s impact on education is defined broadly. A commitment to lifetime learning. Investments in Head Start and Healthy Start. Goals 2000 standards. School choice (with a big ole spotlight on a Checker Finn book). Hiring 100,000 new teachers. Providing 1.3 million children with a safe place after school hours. Wiring 98 percent of our nation’s classrooms with the Internet. Providing two years of college education to all students. School to work. Adult education.
I know, I know. It reads more like a grocery list that core accomplishments. Some are quantifiable, others can only be quantified by how many dollars were spent. Some are narrowly defined, others broadly. So it raises the larger question: What was the true impact of President Clinton’s education agenda?
Eduflack is treading on dangerous ground here, knowing that Eduwife worked at the U.S. Department of Education in mid-1990s and did tremendous work there, particularly in the area of parental involvement. But we have to ask the question, why have we quickly forgotten so many of these Clinton era education initiatives?
Some of it, we just take for granted. Of course our classrooms are wired. We forget that when Clinton took office in 1993, there were only 170 total Web sites on the planet. Today, some of us will visit 170 sites in the course of a work day.
Some just didn’t leave an impact. We may have hired 100,000 new teachers during the Clinton years, but we still bemoan the great teacher shortages in our schools. We may have sought to provide two years of college education to all high school graduates, but college costs continue to skyrocket and college readiness and college attainment numbers have flatlined. If everyone got those two years, would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have to make the investments it is making to get kids through high school and into postsecondary education?
And some we just don’t appreciate. Clinton supported school choice, and did so at a time when the teachers unions (those folks who helped him get elected in the first place) were strongly opposed to any change from the status quo. We take school choice and charters for granted now, but that was a major step for Clinton to take at the time. And it paved the way for W’s voucher program and the expansion of school choice under NCLB.
But Goals 2000 is perhaps the most interesting, and most neglected, piece of the Clinton education portfolio. When he left office, 49 states had bought into Goals 2000. The program stood as a real, concrete first step toward national education standards. What had long been a third rail in education policy had been doggedly pursued by Richard Riley, Mike Cohen, and others, with tangible successes. Without it, who knows if we would even be talking about a national standard for Algebra II (as Achieve has put in place) or comprehensive standards as discussed by NGA, CCSSO, and others.
Ultimately, though, the easiest answer to why so much has been forgotten is impact. As we look at the Clinton agenda, we lose track of many of these initiatives because they seem to place process over results. Yes, the issues and the dollars behind them are impressive. But how has it improved student achievement? How did it boost teacher quality? How did it truly impact K-12 classrooms in schools across the nation?
Instead of answering these questions, we simply moved on. We set aside Goals 2000 and Clinton-era school choice and such so we could focus on NCLB, Reading First, and HQT. Out with the old, in with the new. Instead of building on successes and momentum, the Clinton/Riley agenda was put in storage, waiting to be rediscovered by historians in the decades to come.
Not every president is going to be an education president. And not every president should be. The needs and focus of the nation change from administration to administration. But if we are going to urge our schools to direct their attentions to long-term improvements and longitudinal evaluations, maybe we should consider the same in our federal policies. No, we shouldn’t accept previous efforts blindly, without questioning them or looking for ways to improve them. But with changes in administration — whether it be at the school, district, state, or federal level — shouldn’t we build on the forward progress and financial investments of our predecessors?
Then there is Bush II, and his legacy of No Child Left Behind. Like it or not, NCLB will be remembered as the federal government’s largest investment in public education to date, and praised (or demonized) for its focus on research and results-based education.
What about that president in between? You know, that guy named Clinton. Sure, as governor of Arkansas, he was one of the primary leaders at Bush I’s U.Va. summit. But when we think of President Bill Clinton’s domestic policy successes, education doesn’t leap to mind. Instead, we think of a strong economy, a balanced budget, community policing, and other such programs.
So what about President 42 and education? Eduflack was down in Little Rock, Arkansas this week, and had to make a stop at the Clinton Presidential Library. I’m just a sucker for presidential libraries, dating back to my father’s involvement in the development of the JFK Library in Boston.
At the Clinton Center, they’ve focused on eight or so key issues that defined the Clinton Administration … and one of those issues is education. (In fact, the education alcove is larger than the section dedicated to the role of Vice President Al Gore in the eight-year administration.)
Clinton’s impact on education is defined broadly. A commitment to lifetime learning. Investments in Head Start and Healthy Start. Goals 2000 standards. School choice (with a big ole spotlight on a Checker Finn book). Hiring 100,000 new teachers. Providing 1.3 million children with a safe place after school hours. Wiring 98 percent of our nation’s classrooms with the Internet. Providing two years of college education to all students. School to work. Adult education.
I know, I know. It reads more like a grocery list that core accomplishments. Some are quantifiable, others can only be quantified by how many dollars were spent. Some are narrowly defined, others broadly. So it raises the larger question: What was the true impact of President Clinton’s education agenda?
Eduflack is treading on dangerous ground here, knowing that Eduwife worked at the U.S. Department of Education in mid-1990s and did tremendous work there, particularly in the area of parental involvement. But we have to ask the question, why have we quickly forgotten so many of these Clinton era education initiatives?
Some of it, we just take for granted. Of course our classrooms are wired. We forget that when Clinton took office in 1993, there were only 170 total Web sites on the planet. Today, some of us will visit 170 sites in the course of a work day.
Some just didn’t leave an impact. We may have hired 100,000 new teachers during the Clinton years, but we still bemoan the great teacher shortages in our schools. We may have sought to provide two years of college education to all high school graduates, but college costs continue to skyrocket and college readiness and college attainment numbers have flatlined. If everyone got those two years, would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have to make the investments it is making to get kids through high school and into postsecondary education?
And some we just don’t appreciate. Clinton supported school choice, and did so at a time when the teachers unions (those folks who helped him get elected in the first place) were strongly opposed to any change from the status quo. We take school choice and charters for granted now, but that was a major step for Clinton to take at the time. And it paved the way for W’s voucher program and the expansion of school choice under NCLB.
But Goals 2000 is perhaps the most interesting, and most neglected, piece of the Clinton education portfolio. When he left office, 49 states had bought into Goals 2000. The program stood as a real, concrete first step toward national education standards. What had long been a third rail in education policy had been doggedly pursued by Richard Riley, Mike Cohen, and others, with tangible successes. Without it, who knows if we would even be talking about a national standard for Algebra II (as Achieve has put in place) or comprehensive standards as discussed by NGA, CCSSO, and others.
Ultimately, though, the easiest answer to why so much has been forgotten is impact. As we look at the Clinton agenda, we lose track of many of these initiatives because they seem to place process over results. Yes, the issues and the dollars behind them are impressive. But how has it improved student achievement? How did it boost teacher quality? How did it truly impact K-12 classrooms in schools across the nation?
Instead of answering these questions, we simply moved on. We set aside Goals 2000 and Clinton-era school choice and such so we could focus on NCLB, Reading First, and HQT. Out with the old, in with the new. Instead of building on successes and momentum, the Clinton/Riley agenda was put in storage, waiting to be rediscovered by historians in the decades to come.
Not every president is going to be an education president. And not every president should be. The needs and focus of the nation change from administration to administration. But if we are going to urge our schools to direct their attentions to long-term improvements and longitudinal evaluations, maybe we should consider the same in our federal policies. No, we shouldn’t accept previous efforts blindly, without questioning them or looking for ways to improve them. But with changes in administration — whether it be at the school, district, state, or federal level — shouldn’t we build on the forward progress and financial investments of our predecessors?
Multiple Pathways for Students … and Teachers
We all like to believe that we’re all entitled to one week in the sun. No one can dispute that last week was just such a week for Teach For America. Bookended by articles in The New York Times magazine and the Economist, TFA has been the “it” program of the week. No small feat, what with continued discussions of NCLB, merit pay, and a host of national policy shifts.
Without doubt, TFA has a growing cadre of supporters throughout the nation. As it has expanded the cities and communities in which it serves, the organization has had a demonstrable impact on the school culture, on student and teacher motivation, and, yes, on student performance. Don’t believe Eduflack? Check out the comprehensive research study Mathematica has done on the effectiveness of TFA.
Unfortunately, such attention and growth also gives birth to a healthy opposition. I’ve long told reform clients that if you don’t have such critics, you aren’t doing your job. Changing the status quo, calling on stakeholders to work harder or think smarter or do better invariably always brings forward that opposition. And TFA is no exception.
For years, those critics have been led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, perhaps the greatest defender of the status quo pedagogy of teacher education. Yes, she is a name to be reckoned with. Yes, she brings a distinguished history of good work and a commitment to public education. But sometimes, even the best take a wrong turn.
The status quoers have tried to protect teacher education for decades. The result? Our students’ test scores have been relatively flat for most of Eduflack’s lifetime. We may claim that our schools of education are churning out the best educators ever to face a classroom, but the results don’t reflect that. For too long, we’ve allowed pedagogy to substitute for results. Sure, the inputs may be great, but what out the final outcomes? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are our students better of now than they were two decades ago?
The simple answer is, of course not. Today, we are asking far more of our students than ever before. Success in 2007 requires a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree or certificate. The time when only a third of high school students went to college is over. Instead, we are demanding multiple educational pathways for our students, pathways that provide every student with a way to postsecondary education and a guide to life success.
Which takes us back to Teach For America. If we are expected to build multiple instructional pathways for our students, it only goes to reason that we are to build multiple instructional pathways for our teachers as well. There is no one way to train a teacher. If there was, we’d build that factory and have a non-stop supply of highly qualified, effective teachers for every classroom, including those in low-performing areas.
No, the challenges of our schools requires multiple ways of thinking. From looking at those schools where programs like Teach For America or Troops to Teachers reside, we know that pedagogy is the least of these classrooms’ problems. Here, many students have all but given up hope. They’ve lost faith in the school, or in the teacher, or in learning itself. For them, it isn’t about instructional approaches. It is about repairing the school culture. Returning hope. Connecting the student with the teacher and the school.
And that’s where programs like TFA excel. Success is not measured by an individual teacher or a specific cadre of corps members. Success, in the long run, comes from knowing there will always been a TFA teacher in front of that classroom, a teacher who connects with the student, inspires the student, and reconnects the student’s passion for learning.
Accomplish that, and the student achievement will come. And scientific research can prove it. If anything, Darling-Hammond and her defenders of the status quo should be seeking out more opportunities and efforts like TFA. More programs that bring hope to inner-city schools. More programs that instill a culture of learning. More programs that provide our schools with enthusiastic, driven instructors eager to lead a classroom that has long been neglected. More programs that build a future generation of leadership on the notion that no issue is more important to the success of our nation and our community than a high-quality, effective education for ALL students.
Some critics, including those at dear ole Stanford, would point to the lifespan of a TFA teacher, questioning whether two years in the classroom really makes a difference. But how different is the two-year commitment of a TFA teacher from the short lifespan of today’s traditional new teacher? TFA’s mission was never to focus on teacher retention issues — it was to provide an ongoing stream of qualified, enthusiastic, committed educators in the communities that need them the most. TFA plays that specific role extremely well, so much so that it is continually embraced by superintendents, principals, and teachers across the nation. And in reality, the studies of TFA alumni show many of them stay in the classroom, go into school administration, or assume other roles that support education and growth in the community. And isn’t that a measure of an effective educator?
In a nation looking for K-12 solutions, we need multiple answers. One just won’t do. And Teach For America is definitely one of the answers. Ask a “traditional” teacher who works with a TFAer, and they’ll tell you the same thing. Ask a family whose child is in a TFA classroom, and they’ll concur. Ask Mathematica and other researchers, and they’ll give you the proof points.
Teacher For America and its leaders should enjoy their week in the sun. The hard work begins today. Across the nation, districts and schools know TFA and programs like it work. So as the critics circle, TFA, its leadership, and its corps members need to ensure the highest quality implementation, instruction, and effect. Success is the best defense of the critics and the status quoers. And TFA is on its way.
Without doubt, TFA has a growing cadre of supporters throughout the nation. As it has expanded the cities and communities in which it serves, the organization has had a demonstrable impact on the school culture, on student and teacher motivation, and, yes, on student performance. Don’t believe Eduflack? Check out the comprehensive research study Mathematica has done on the effectiveness of TFA.
Unfortunately, such attention and growth also gives birth to a healthy opposition. I’ve long told reform clients that if you don’t have such critics, you aren’t doing your job. Changing the status quo, calling on stakeholders to work harder or think smarter or do better invariably always brings forward that opposition. And TFA is no exception.
For years, those critics have been led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, perhaps the greatest defender of the status quo pedagogy of teacher education. Yes, she is a name to be reckoned with. Yes, she brings a distinguished history of good work and a commitment to public education. But sometimes, even the best take a wrong turn.
The status quoers have tried to protect teacher education for decades. The result? Our students’ test scores have been relatively flat for most of Eduflack’s lifetime. We may claim that our schools of education are churning out the best educators ever to face a classroom, but the results don’t reflect that. For too long, we’ve allowed pedagogy to substitute for results. Sure, the inputs may be great, but what out the final outcomes? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are our students better of now than they were two decades ago?
The simple answer is, of course not. Today, we are asking far more of our students than ever before. Success in 2007 requires a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree or certificate. The time when only a third of high school students went to college is over. Instead, we are demanding multiple educational pathways for our students, pathways that provide every student with a way to postsecondary education and a guide to life success.
Which takes us back to Teach For America. If we are expected to build multiple instructional pathways for our students, it only goes to reason that we are to build multiple instructional pathways for our teachers as well. There is no one way to train a teacher. If there was, we’d build that factory and have a non-stop supply of highly qualified, effective teachers for every classroom, including those in low-performing areas.
No, the challenges of our schools requires multiple ways of thinking. From looking at those schools where programs like Teach For America or Troops to Teachers reside, we know that pedagogy is the least of these classrooms’ problems. Here, many students have all but given up hope. They’ve lost faith in the school, or in the teacher, or in learning itself. For them, it isn’t about instructional approaches. It is about repairing the school culture. Returning hope. Connecting the student with the teacher and the school.
And that’s where programs like TFA excel. Success is not measured by an individual teacher or a specific cadre of corps members. Success, in the long run, comes from knowing there will always been a TFA teacher in front of that classroom, a teacher who connects with the student, inspires the student, and reconnects the student’s passion for learning.
Accomplish that, and the student achievement will come. And scientific research can prove it. If anything, Darling-Hammond and her defenders of the status quo should be seeking out more opportunities and efforts like TFA. More programs that bring hope to inner-city schools. More programs that instill a culture of learning. More programs that provide our schools with enthusiastic, driven instructors eager to lead a classroom that has long been neglected. More programs that build a future generation of leadership on the notion that no issue is more important to the success of our nation and our community than a high-quality, effective education for ALL students.
Some critics, including those at dear ole Stanford, would point to the lifespan of a TFA teacher, questioning whether two years in the classroom really makes a difference. But how different is the two-year commitment of a TFA teacher from the short lifespan of today’s traditional new teacher? TFA’s mission was never to focus on teacher retention issues — it was to provide an ongoing stream of qualified, enthusiastic, committed educators in the communities that need them the most. TFA plays that specific role extremely well, so much so that it is continually embraced by superintendents, principals, and teachers across the nation. And in reality, the studies of TFA alumni show many of them stay in the classroom, go into school administration, or assume other roles that support education and growth in the community. And isn’t that a measure of an effective educator?
In a nation looking for K-12 solutions, we need multiple answers. One just won’t do. And Teach For America is definitely one of the answers. Ask a “traditional” teacher who works with a TFAer, and they’ll tell you the same thing. Ask a family whose child is in a TFA classroom, and they’ll concur. Ask Mathematica and other researchers, and they’ll give you the proof points.
Teacher For America and its leaders should enjoy their week in the sun. The hard work begins today. Across the nation, districts and schools know TFA and programs like it work. So as the critics circle, TFA, its leadership, and its corps members need to ensure the highest quality implementation, instruction, and effect. Success is the best defense of the critics and the status quoers. And TFA is on its way.
Looking for Ideas Behind the Endorsement
This afternoon, the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton for President of the United States of America. It should be no surprise. The former Clinton administration had strong support in the teachers unions. And Senator Clinton has long been a friend of UFT, NYSUT, and AFT. In its endorsement, AFT cites Clinton’s “proven ability to advance our nation’s key priorities, and her bold plans for a stronger America.”
And good for the AFT. Rather than wait for additional polling data from the key early states, or wanting to see another quarter of fundraising totals, or waiting to hear more detail on specific issues and policies, the AFT has put its money down on the horse they expect to see in the winner’s circle. And they’ve done so believing that Clinton represents the best opportunity for AFT-friendly policies come January 2009.
Eduflack is going to assume that Clinton just wowed AFT during the interview process, discussing those bold plans and awing them with her discussion of how she would deal with those key priorities. Now she’s won their endorsement, and the organizational prowess, resources, and support that come with it.
But it’s got me scratching my head. For those of us watching from the cheap seats, what exactly is Hillary Clinton’s education platform? Visit her website, and you don’t even see “education” in her issues menu. Take some time to explore, and in the “Supporting Parents and Caring for Children” list, you’ll find a bullet to attract and retain good teachers and principals, one to improve NCLB and a bullet increasing access to high-quality early education (a plank she has been quite vocal on and should be credited for). But those issues are part of a laundry list that includes care for elderly Americans, support for “kinship families,” and opposition to sex and violence in the media.
We all talk about the importance of education. About the need to improve our schools. About the need to give every child a chance. And about how high-quality education affects everything from jobs to healthcare to justice to environment. Many of us cite education as the top domestic issue this nation faces. And national polls seem to regularly put it in the list of top fives issues, foreign or domestic.
So if it is so important, why are we still hearing so little of it from presidential candidates? What platform did Clinton offer to win the support of AFT? What changes would she make to improve NCLB? What commitments will she make to attract and retain good teachers? Does she support merit pay? What about alternative certification programs? How about multiple measures of progress? What interventions does she support to increase the graduation rate? What is the platform?
I don’t mean to pick on Clinton. She should be credited for putting forward a meaningful, thought-providing plan for improving early education. And at the end of the day, she may be the strongest education candidate, in terms of policy ideas, an understanding for the possible, and the capability to reach for the near-impossible. But if she wins the endorsement of the AFT (and we assume and NEA endorsement may not be too far behind), don’t the voters have a right to hear the specific ways the candidate will improve educational quality and delivery in the United States? And if we don’t, how do we hold the candidate, any candidate, accountable?
And good for the AFT. Rather than wait for additional polling data from the key early states, or wanting to see another quarter of fundraising totals, or waiting to hear more detail on specific issues and policies, the AFT has put its money down on the horse they expect to see in the winner’s circle. And they’ve done so believing that Clinton represents the best opportunity for AFT-friendly policies come January 2009.
Eduflack is going to assume that Clinton just wowed AFT during the interview process, discussing those bold plans and awing them with her discussion of how she would deal with those key priorities. Now she’s won their endorsement, and the organizational prowess, resources, and support that come with it.
But it’s got me scratching my head. For those of us watching from the cheap seats, what exactly is Hillary Clinton’s education platform? Visit her website, and you don’t even see “education” in her issues menu. Take some time to explore, and in the “Supporting Parents and Caring for Children” list, you’ll find a bullet to attract and retain good teachers and principals, one to improve NCLB and a bullet increasing access to high-quality early education (a plank she has been quite vocal on and should be credited for). But those issues are part of a laundry list that includes care for elderly Americans, support for “kinship families,” and opposition to sex and violence in the media.
We all talk about the importance of education. About the need to improve our schools. About the need to give every child a chance. And about how high-quality education affects everything from jobs to healthcare to justice to environment. Many of us cite education as the top domestic issue this nation faces. And national polls seem to regularly put it in the list of top fives issues, foreign or domestic.
So if it is so important, why are we still hearing so little of it from presidential candidates? What platform did Clinton offer to win the support of AFT? What changes would she make to improve NCLB? What commitments will she make to attract and retain good teachers? Does she support merit pay? What about alternative certification programs? How about multiple measures of progress? What interventions does she support to increase the graduation rate? What is the platform?
I don’t mean to pick on Clinton. She should be credited for putting forward a meaningful, thought-providing plan for improving early education. And at the end of the day, she may be the strongest education candidate, in terms of policy ideas, an understanding for the possible, and the capability to reach for the near-impossible. But if she wins the endorsement of the AFT (and we assume and NEA endorsement may not be too far behind), don’t the voters have a right to hear the specific ways the candidate will improve educational quality and delivery in the United States? And if we don’t, how do we hold the candidate, any candidate, accountable?
In this rush to wrap up the presidential campaigns by this winter, we run the risk of placing assumptions and core rhetoric ahead of real ideas and policies. In doing so, we continue to perpetuate the same old empty reform rhetoric, with no one being held accountable. For those of us who vote on education issues, we want to hear those “bold ideas” Senator Clinton has. That doesn’t come from one debate question or a well-placed oped. It comes from an integrated, coherent strategic plan for improving K-12 education.
Eduflack has bold ideas for a strong America too. But no one is going to rush to endorse me for President. Now that Clinton has the backing of AFT, I hope she will tell 1.4 million AFT members (and hundreds of millions of American voters) what specifically she is going to improve public education in the United States. That would be something to truly endorse. Now where’s Ed in 08 when we need them?
Eduflack has bold ideas for a strong America too. But no one is going to rush to endorse me for President. Now that Clinton has the backing of AFT, I hope she will tell 1.4 million AFT members (and hundreds of millions of American voters) what specifically she is going to improve public education in the United States. That would be something to truly endorse. Now where’s Ed in 08 when we need them?
The Ed Trust White Hat
If the latest movie reviews are any indication, westerns are back. And they are back for a very simple reason. They effectively tell a story. We have a protagonist. We have an obstacle to overcome. Things seem bleak. Then the hero rises to the challenge, saves the town and wins the gal. If that were too hard for us to follow, we just need to know that the good guys wear white hats; the bad guys black.
In many ways, education reform is like that time-tested genre. And we only need to look west to California to see what Eduflack means.
The setting — California public schools. An old regular around the corral, going by the name George Miller, notices that his education town is lacking. It’s missing those experienced or enthusiastic hands needed to lead in the classroom. Without such teachers, Miller will never strengthen the schools and bring academic hope to those who had lost it. The town may just fade away, the victim of another lost generation of students.
So Miller gathers his posse of Democrats and Republicans, advocates and business leaders, and draws up a plan. We’ll bring those teachers to town the way we recruit good sheriffs or businessmen or such professionals. We reward success. We incentivize the job, paying more to those teachers willing to take on tough assignments and to those teachers who succeed when all said it was hopeless. We recognize achievement, tipping our cap to outcomes, and not just inputs.
As Miller unveils his new plan to the town council, in rides the California Teachers Association, intent on thwarting Miller’s plans for improvement. Topped in the black hats of the status quo, CTA calls Miller’s plan “unfair” and “disrespectful.” Implementing it will destroy the town, driving teachers away and leaving our classrooms rudderless. If there is money available for incentives, use it to give all teachers a raise, regardless of their effectiveness.
In the past, when CTA has ridden into town, community elders have acquiesced to the demands of the CTA. One can’t risk standing against an organization as large and powerful as the CTA, particularly on an issue like teacher pay. After all, if you cross these rhetoricians in black, their omens may come true and all could be lost. Better to stick with the status quo than to raise the ire of the CTA and its supporters.
Out in the distance, though, approaches a white horse. With six-shooters loaded with research data, the Education Trust has ridden to Miller’s defense, and to the defense of those inner-city teachers determined to make a difference and improve student achievement. Performance pay works. Our schools need change. The status quo cannot remain. Incentives boost student achievement and teacher satisfaction. This should be the law. And EdTrust will stay here until it the legislation is wearing its little tin star of “law.”
Will our reformers on the white horse succeed? Will Miller find a way to incentivize teachers? Or will the CTA keep its grip on public education in California? We’ll all stay tuned for the next installment, as we wait to see who rides in to join EdTrust in this showdown at the performance pay corral.
In many ways, education reform is like that time-tested genre. And we only need to look west to California to see what Eduflack means.
The setting — California public schools. An old regular around the corral, going by the name George Miller, notices that his education town is lacking. It’s missing those experienced or enthusiastic hands needed to lead in the classroom. Without such teachers, Miller will never strengthen the schools and bring academic hope to those who had lost it. The town may just fade away, the victim of another lost generation of students.
So Miller gathers his posse of Democrats and Republicans, advocates and business leaders, and draws up a plan. We’ll bring those teachers to town the way we recruit good sheriffs or businessmen or such professionals. We reward success. We incentivize the job, paying more to those teachers willing to take on tough assignments and to those teachers who succeed when all said it was hopeless. We recognize achievement, tipping our cap to outcomes, and not just inputs.
As Miller unveils his new plan to the town council, in rides the California Teachers Association, intent on thwarting Miller’s plans for improvement. Topped in the black hats of the status quo, CTA calls Miller’s plan “unfair” and “disrespectful.” Implementing it will destroy the town, driving teachers away and leaving our classrooms rudderless. If there is money available for incentives, use it to give all teachers a raise, regardless of their effectiveness.
In the past, when CTA has ridden into town, community elders have acquiesced to the demands of the CTA. One can’t risk standing against an organization as large and powerful as the CTA, particularly on an issue like teacher pay. After all, if you cross these rhetoricians in black, their omens may come true and all could be lost. Better to stick with the status quo than to raise the ire of the CTA and its supporters.
Out in the distance, though, approaches a white horse. With six-shooters loaded with research data, the Education Trust has ridden to Miller’s defense, and to the defense of those inner-city teachers determined to make a difference and improve student achievement. Performance pay works. Our schools need change. The status quo cannot remain. Incentives boost student achievement and teacher satisfaction. This should be the law. And EdTrust will stay here until it the legislation is wearing its little tin star of “law.”
Will our reformers on the white horse succeed? Will Miller find a way to incentivize teachers? Or will the CTA keep its grip on public education in California? We’ll all stay tuned for the next installment, as we wait to see who rides in to join EdTrust in this showdown at the performance pay corral.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 