Marketing

Engaging the Public on Math Reform

Eduflack Marketing, Math, NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

When the National Reading Panel released its landmark “Teaching Children to Read” report in April 2000, the obvious question to follow was, “what’s next?”  The federal government releases studies like “Teaching Children to Read” all the time.  The report comes out, copies are distributed, and they usually end up in someone’s closet, on someone’s bookcase to get dusty, or as a doorstop in a state department of education.

As loyal readers know, NRP was a passion project for Eduflack.  I was involved from the very beginning serving as a senior advisor to the panel and helping with everything from qualitative research to editorial.  For two years, NRP was my life, and I wouldn’t change a day of it.
During the NRP process, the we recognized that we needed to do more than just traditionally “disseminate” the findings.  Informing key stakeholders on reading research was an important step, yes.  But if the NRP was going to have the lasting effect it intended (and the lasting effect, I argue, it has) we needed to reach far deeper.  We needed to move beyond simply informing to engaging.  And we needed to move from engaging to changing behavior.  
Ultimately, we needed to change the way the education world dealt with reading instruction.  We needed to change how teachers taught kids to read.  We needed to change what parents asked about reading in the classroom.  We needed to change how school administrators made decisions on the programs they purchased.  We needed to change how local, state, and federal elected officials prioritized funding for reading instruction.  And we needed to change how the community at large, particularly the business community, addressed the issue and focused on reading.  Most importantly, we needed to change student reading ability, ensuring that virtually every student gained the research-based instruction needed to be reading proficient by fourth grade.
Such change is no small undertaking.  Following the release of the NRP report in 2000, we spent two years engaging in a range of communications and public engagement activities.  Conference presentations.  Interviews with the media.  Interactions with key stakeholder groups and influential individuals.  Armed with just the massive Report of the Subgroups, the Summary Report, and the NRP Video Report, we began the process of informing, engaging, and changing thinking.
After the tenets of NRP were included in No Child Left Behind (Reading First in particular), a new phase of engagement began.  The U.S. Department of Education created the Partnership for Reading, a joint effort led by all federal agencies involved in one way or another with reading.  This included ED, HHS, Labor, and NIH.  Together, these agencies pledged a shared support to promote a unified commitment to scientifically based reading instruction.
Through the Partnership (another project Eduflack played a leading role in), we were able to launch a national public engagement campaign to ensure that all audiences 1) understood scientifically based reading instruction; 2) knew why it was important; and 3) began implementing it in their schools, classes, and communities.  Originally, the work focused on a broad range of stakeholder audiences, including policymakers, the business community, school administrators, researchers, teacher educators, teachers, and parents.  During the two-year process, we winnowed down our audiences, seeing the key actors in getting SBRR into the classroom as both the teacher and the parent.
To accomplish this effort, we engaged in a wide range of communications activities, far more than those used following the NRP release.  Development of strong, audience-specific messages.  Creation of specific materials designed for specific stakeholders.  Media relations.  Public service announcement campaign (both print and radio, in both English and Spanish).  Conference presentations and exhibitions.  A speakers bureau.  Partnership development.  And any and all marketing and communications activities designed to spread the word about the need for and the impact of SBRR.
At the end of the day, I am proud of the results we accomplished.  Yes, we secured significant media coverage (millions of impressions worth millions and millions of ad-equivalent dollars).  But we also built a strong network of supporters and advocates.  Through a working partners group, we brought together organizations like NEA, AFT, AASA, and IRA (organizations not exactly friendly with ED or NCLB at the time) and joined them with NGA, NAESP, BRT, and the Chamber as a sign of shared commitment to scientifically based reading.  How?  At the end of the day, all of these organizations, regardless of their political leanings, shared a common belief that every child needed to learn to read and we needed to use instructional approaches that worked to get all children reading.
I don’t take this walk down memory lane to toot any particular horn or wait for an applause line for the hard work of all of the people at NICHD and ED who helped move this forward, from 2000 through 2005.  Instead, I reflect on this experience because of an article in this week’s Education Week.  In it, Sean Cavanagh reports on the current efforts underway to promote the recently released report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/10/08mathpanel.h28.html
The”>www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/10/08mathpanel.h28.html
The Math Panel is to be commended for its work, and it is especially noteworthy that they were able to pull together a conference earlier this month for policy folks and practitioners to focus on how to move the Panel’s findings into U.S. classrooms.  The NRP shared a similar goal, but those conferences quickly evolved into RF conferences after the passage of NCLB.
Cavanagh also focuses on efforts to print more than 160,000 pamphlets for parents on elementary and middle school math.  Again, a needed step.  For change to occur in our schools, parents must be effectively used as a lever for action.  Lasting change does not come without real, sustained action from the parents.
EdWeek also notes the work of the ED’s Doing What Works website (http://dww.ed.gov) to move the Math Panel’s findings into teachable moments for educators and professional developers.  (Full disclosure, Eduwife is managing DWW for ED).
But I also hope the Math Panel is thinking bigger, thinking bolder, and thinking more audaciously.  Yes, it is unfortunate that ED will soon change hands, and a new EdSec will have new priorities.  And yes, it is unfortunate that the Math Wars make the Reading Wars seem like Cub Scout jamborees.  But the findings of the Math Panel are too important to fall by the wayside come January 2009.  The need to equip all students with real math skills is too important for our schools, our community, our economy, and our nation for the Math Panel’s report to hit a dusty shelf come next year, forgotten for the “next big thing.”
Someone needs to launch a massive public engagement campaign to reform math instruction.  Building from the work, infrastructure, and results of the Partnership for Reading, someone needs to work with parents, teachers, and policymakers to focus on getting what works when it comes to math into the classroom.  And, ideally, someone outside of the federal government needs to make this their national priority, allowing such a campaign to move swifter and more nimbly than a government effort.
Interested?  I’m happy to give you my cent-and-a-half to get it off the ground.
 

Bringing Together Effective Education Communicators

Eduflack Marketing, PR

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

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

Thinking Less of Our Schools

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB, PR

This week, Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University released their second annual survey on public education.  There is a lot of interesting data here (http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/26380034.html).

For years, we have subscribed to the notion that we believe our own schools are doing a great job, even if we think public schools nationally are struggling.  What does the data say?  Nationally, only 9% of those surveyed would give their own schools an A (still a huge improvement from the 2% who give us an A nationally).  More than half of those surveyed said their own schools scored a C or worse, while more than three-quarters of adults gave a C or poorer to our schools nationally.

By comparison, 19% give our local police force an A.  Heck, 22% give the post office an A.

But we are schizophrenic on our views of our schools.  Three quarters of adults rate the schools average (C) or worse, yet 56% believe our schools are heading in the right direction (with two of three teachers surveyed seeing an upward trend).

The right direction must be because of NCLB, right?  Wrong.  Half of adults say NCLB should either be overhauled or not renewed at all.  With teachers, three-quarters of educators give it a thumbs down.

Huh?  How can that be?  We are headed in the right direction, but we need to dramatically change or reject the path we’ve been taking for the past six years?  It just doesn’t make sense.

Education Next does deserve credit for its definition of NCLB.  Over the past five years, survey after survey has tried to capture similar data, with varied results.  And it often comes down to the questions posed.  For this survey, NCLB is defined simply:  “the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set standards in math and reading and to test students each year to determine whether schools are making adequate progress, and to intervene when they are not.”
 
On the plus side, 69% of adults want national education standards, and want standards defined as “one test and standard for all students.”  (A majority of teachers, 54%, support a single national standard.)

What does all this tell us?  Unfortunately, we’re back to a familiar refrain from Eduflack.  We must do a better job of promoting the progress, the successes, and the good works of our local schools.  For the past few years, we have dwelled on the negatives and the negatives only.  Failing students.  Over-their-head teachers.  Overworked administrators.  Unconcerned parents.  Is it any wonder we don’t see any A schools out there, either nationally or in our own communities?

Reforming schools is about improving schools.  We can put in the right curriculum.  Train and support the right teachers.  Demonstrate improved student achievement.  It is all for naught if we aren’t “selling” reform and educating stakeholders on what’s really happening in our classrooms.  If this data is any indication, effective marketing and PR for our schools may be almost as important instruction.
  
 

What is Great in Education?

Eduflack Marketing

Five or so years ago, the hot read was Jim Collins’ “Good to Great.”  Company after company made it required reading.  The cocktail party elite tried to recite sections from the book.  The technology industry groused that they were excluded (since most lacked the shelf life of Collins’ methodology).  And most wanted folks to see that little red book proudly on display on their office book shelf.

I’ll be honest.  Eduflack was whelmed by the book at the time.  (An aside, I am a firm believer that whelmed is a word.  If I can be overwhelmed and underwhelmed, I can be whelmed.  Please feel free to use in your day-to-day conversations.)  I felt several of the companies really lacked the “greatness” I would expect.  And the future developments, such as Circuit City eliminating experienced staff for cheaper, unexperienced employees only reinforces the point.

But my greater concern was how quickly those in the non-business community, particularly those in the education sector, were quick to embrace the “Good to Great” philosophy and try to apply it to their organizational situation.  Too much is different — from resources to rubrics to results — to say what works for business must work for education, without question.  Yes, education can learn a great deal from business (and vice versa), but the education pegs don’t always fit through the corporate holes.

Over the weekend, I picked up Collins’ monograph “Good to Great and the Social Sectors.”  It is 30 some odd pages, and well worth the read.  And I was won over by the first sentence.  “We must reject the idea — well-intentioned but dead wrong — that the primary path to greatness in the social sectors is to become ‘more like a business.’  Most businesses — like most of anything else in life — fall somewhere between mediocre and good.  Few are great.”

Somehow, we all missed that point when the original book came out.  We all want to be great, so we looked for our own organization in the text.  We never bothered to ask what it took to get our school, district, or education NFP to even the good status.

In the monograph, Collins spends little time talking about education.  Instead, the focus is on traditional non-profits.  But he does make mention of K-12 education when describing the economic engines in the social sectors.  To paraphrase, a strong education engine requires “heavily on political skill and maintaining political support.”

There is much good here on leadership traits and on how the social sector builds on Collins’ concepts of the Hedgehog and the Flywheel.  Like most, it results in far more questions than answers.

Collins puts us on a number of good paths.  The most important of which is that we need to plot the path from good to great in public education.  How do we take the original book, and this monograph, and build a guidebook for our K-12 leaders?  And just as important, how do we use what we know to build a path to get the majority of schools to “good,” just so they have the possibility of becoming great schools.

Mr. Collins, I’m certain such an approach would make John Gardner proud.  And if you need a hand, drop me a line.

Caffeinating NCLB

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB

If we’re to believe the chattering class, the greatest problem in public education today is No Child Left Behind.  It’s destroyed our schools, bankrupted our districts, frustrated our teachers, and destroyed the morale of our students.  Those standards and high stakes testing, in particular, have been the death of us.

You hear it so much that you almost believe it.  Then you get that slap upside the head, much like an overcaffeinated espresso, that reminds of you the truth.  This week, that slap has come from Seattle, hardly the home of the George W. fan club.  It seems the Seattle Times has thrown its editorial muscle behind NCLB (kudos to Ed Trust’s Equity Express for highlighting it.)

In a strongly worded editorial this week, the Seattle Times praises NCLB for “injecting rigor and accountability into a system that previously had little of both.”  The editors also note that recent improvements to the law — including demonstrations of flexibility on AYP — will take years for us to see, and we need to be patient.  The full article is here — http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004444420_nclbed29.html.

It’s unusual to see such pieces these days, when NCLB has been left as a punchline to a national education joke.  But as the Seattle Times and many others have noted, there is value to the law.  Forget, for a moment, that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act isn’t going away.  There are real positives in this law, and states, municipalities, and schools are seeing that.  

The Times is absolutely correct.  We are a better nation because of NCLB.  A national commitment to academic rigor is a good thing.  A national commitment to student achievement is a good thing.  A national commitment to doing what works in getting kids to learn is a good thing.  And a national belief that EVERY kid can succeed, given the right opportunities and circumstances, is indeed a good thing.

These were the sorts of messages we needed to hear three years ago, when we actually had the chance to reauthorize NCLB.  As Spellings and ED now play out the clock, there are few sane policywonks that believe reauthorization will happen this year.  Most don’t even believe it will happen in 2009. 

That could be a very different story is editorials like those appearing in Seattle had been printed years ago, and with in greater numbers.  ANd the responsibility, or the failed responsibility, for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Department of Education.  The want us to drink the kool-aid, but they failed to market it to us as the end-all, be-all thirst quencher for our educational woes.  They failed to build demand for NCLB, and instead tried to force it upon us, no questions asked.  Thus, we are in the situation we’re in today.

The age-old story of opportunities lost and chances squandered.  Hopefully, we will always have the intent of NCLB propelling our ed reform sails … even if it goes by a different name and has different champions.  Rigor, accountability, achievement, success should have no party affiliation and should always remain in vogue.   

It’s a Matter of Principal!

Eduflack Marketing, NASSP

We all know education gets coverage in the media.  Typically, though, we read, watch, or hear about problems in the schools — budget shortfalls, disappointing test scores, and such.  And those stories are usually found in the back of the metro section or as an afterthought on the evening news.  After all the debate on education and its impact on the community and the future, education doesn’t drive the news.  It tends to just come along for the ride.

Every once and a while, though, education media can surprise you.  Over the last year, we’ve seen cover stories in Time and Newsweek.  Today, USA Today give prominence to NASSP’s Principal of the Year.

No, it is not unusual for USA Today to cover education issues.  They tend to do a terrific job at it, and have a great team of education reporters.  What makes a profile of Louisville, Georgia’s Jefferson County High School Principal Molly Howard — NASSP and MetLife’s 2008 Principal of the Year — so special?  Maybe it is the fact that USA Today gave Principal Howard more than a half page … in the Money section.

Check out the full interview here – http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-03-16-principal-advice_N.htm.

Publishing this interview in the Money section is important to note.  We often talk about how business can influence education reform.  Performance pay.  Management systems.  Return on investment.  We seek to improve our schools by laying business principles on our educational frameworks.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  But there seems to be common belief that business lessons can improve education delivery.

Today’s profile of Howard — in USA Today’s Executive Suite interview series — demonstrates that the business world can also learn a thing or two from educational leaders.  By talking about leadership, data, relationships, listening, and understanding, Howard focuses on the same issues successful business leaders care about.  And she does it through an education lens, demonstrating the universality of such observations.

Further, it demonstrates that leaders are leaders, regardless of their chosen industry sector.  Principals are the CEOs of their building, overseeing facilities, HR, sales, data collection, marketing, and customer service.  They are both building managers and instructional leaders.  And those like Howard demonstrate that true leadership traits are universal.

The Gift of Educational Giving?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB

Even after all these years, everyone wants to get their products or ideas on Oprah.  Authors, community activists, actors, and the wannabes want to hear their names (and hopefully some praise) come out of the Queen of Television’s mouth.  And those in the education community are no different.

For those who have missed it, Sunday nights for the past month have been home for Oprah Winfrey’s Big Give.  The premise is simple.  They send a pack of volunteers to raise money or make a difference for an individual, a family, or a community.  Each week, the weakest philanthropist is sent home, with the remaining givers moving on to the next fundraising event.

Tonight, Oprah sent two teams to Houston to raise money for two low-income elementary schools.  Aided by sports phenoms Andre Agassi and Tony Hawk, the amateur philanthropists had a great impact on the two schools — and the two school communities — they were tasked with serving.

Among all the hoopla of tennis events and skateboarding and Santa Claus and new playgrounds, there was a lost PR opportunity for the education sector.  In the middle of the program, there was a visit from former President George H.W. Bush.  And a throwaway line thanking his son for giving curriculum to the school.

It is presumed that a tip of the hat should go to Neil Bush and Ignite! Learning.  We have to assume that Ignite! stepped up and provided one of these Houston schools with their computer-based curriculum.  After all, no other Bush children are in the curriculum business (unless you count the current president).

It isn’t unusual for a company to participate in such an act.  Typically, it is so it can get prime “advertising” space, having its name plastered across the screen or coming out of the mouths of the program’s host.  It’s a marketing tactic, designed to build name recognition and demonstrate the company is committed to the community.

But it is unusual to make a donation on a national television program, and not demand such recognition.  Maybe the applause for Ignite! was left on the cutting room floor.  Or maybe Bush and his company just wanted to give a little to a Houston school that can’t afford its software.  Regardless, Ignite! should get a little credit for its giving.  And maybe, just maybe, it is part of a larger corporate commitment to getting its learning platform into the schools that need it, even if they can’t pay for it today.

Equal Opportunities for Success?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Presidential campaign

There seems to be virtual agreement that much more needs to be done to improve our nation’s public schools.  Education is, and should be, the great equalizer.  Under the current law of the land — NCLB — our nation is committed to providing access to a high-quality, effective education for all students.  For those who can’t get such an education at their community school, the law provides for vouchers, supplemental services, school choice, charter schools, and even improved instruction through Reading First.

For months now, Eduflack has been waiting for the presidential candidates to jump into the rhetorical debate on the future of public education.  Aside from a few quick phrases and taglines along the fringes, most have stayed away from the education issue.  After last week’s NEA conference, it seems a few are starting to dip their toes into the water.

The latest is John Edwards.  Seeking to promote his “two Americas” agenda, Edwards chose New Orleans to take his first stand on improving public education.  The Politico has the story.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4957.html

His solution?  Busing and housing vouchers.  Sure, he offers a few additional ideas, but once his stump speech makes its way through the media filters (if the media even notices), it will be remembered for two issues — busing and housing vouchers.  And that’s a shame.

In promoting these ideas, Edwards is saying that some communities in this country are beyond assistance.  We need to bus kids away from struggling schools, hoping a change of scenery will boost student achievement.  And we need to uproot families, telling them that opportunity can only come to those in some, not all, communities. 

This is the wrong message at the wrong time.  At the root of meaningful education reform is the belief that all schools can be improved if they have access to proven instruction and high-quality teachers.  NCLB strengthens that belief, committing the nation to ensure that no child is left behind and all children have access to a high-quality, effective education.

Spending $100 million on a busing plan doesn’t solve the problem.  Instead, we’re playing three-card monty, hoping that no one flips over the underlying problem.  Shuffling kids around doesn’t improve educational quality.  It may help a few kids improve, but it doesn’t fix the problem.  Don’t believe me?  Take a look at how well busing worked in the 1960s and 1970s.  Many cities have just recently ended that failed social experiment.  In 2007, we should all rally around the belief that all students should have a chance to succeed, not just those fortunate enough to gain a seat on the bus, a slot in a magnet school lottery, or a voucher for a new apartment.

Senator Edwards, if you really want to tear down the walls between the two Americas, offer an idea for getting effective teachers in some of the most struggling of classrooms.  Provide the means to ensure that proven-effective instruction is taught with fidelity in every school, regardless of socioeconomic standing.  Commit to holding all schools accountable, giving all students the resources and support they need to achieve.

Edwards has put a weak volley across the education reform net.  Who’s up for returning it with a little umph?

Telling a Good Story

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, President Bush, Reading First, SBRR

We’re all familiar with the phrase, “if it bleeds, it leads.”  The thought behind it is if something horrible happens (particularly something horrible with great art), then it is front-page worthy.  A tragedy makes great news.  Scandal makes great copy.  An official getting caught doing something wrong is a great news hook.

Over at This Week in Education, Alexander Russo has a list of the education-related news stories from the past month (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/thisweekineducation/upload/2007/05/big_stories_of_the_month/May%202007%20News%20%26%20TWIE%20Posts.doc)  It should come as no surprise that this list is full of scandal, wrongdoing, and general negativity.  NCLB reauthorization and Capitol Hill hearings figure prominently, as do schools closing, programs being abandoned, and teachers being fired.  There are some exceptions, but pointing out the failings in our education system seems to be driving education coverage as a whole.  And Eduflack is just as guilty.

Are there no “good” stories out there on education reform?  I’ll be honest, I’ve been struggling for the last week to find some examples of reform done good anywhere.  Maybe it is the end of the school year.  Maybe folks have tired of education issues for now.  Maybe the current NCLB struggles have sucked all of the oxygen out of the room.  But I am desparate for a good story.

Why should we care?  Don’t we have an obligation to seek the truth?  With taxpayer dollars going into education reform, isn’t it a moral imperative that keep a watchful eye on the field and point out where we take a wrong step or where we may be headed down a rabbit hole we simply cannot emerge from?

At the end of the day, communications is good storytelling.  You need a protagonist.  You need a challenge he is trying to overcome.  You need obstables that may prevent him from succeeding.  And then you need SUCCESS.  Take a look at any good children’s book or Disney movie, and you’ll see those steps are the key to telling any good story.  Likewise, they are the key to effectively communicating education reform.

I’ll beat the dead horse.  Let’s take Reading First as our example.  The U.S. Department of Education can clamor about longitudinal research statistics and disagregated data until they are blue in the face.  The most successful RF story is one President Bush told several years ago at a town hall meeting at NIH.  He introduced a teacher from the South.  Her class was struggling.  Virtually no students were reading at grade level.  School district was poor.  Students weren’t necessarily getting the encouragement and support they needed from home.  But this teacher was determined they would read.  She implemented scientifically based reading instruction, knowing the research showed it would work with kids like hers.  She provided one-to-one interventions when necessary.  Over time, she started to see the results.  Soon, all of her kids were reading.  They had found a passion for learning.  They had an opportunity to succeed in both school and life.  The could achieve … thanks to Reading First and scientifically based reading.

Sure, it may be a little sappy. But personalization and storytelling make it compelling.  And it talks about complex policy in a way the average American can understand.  And it stays positive.  There may be challenges.  There may be obstacles.  But our protagonist perseveres.  That’s successful communication, and that’s a story many of us would want to read each morning with our coffee (or Diet Coke).


 

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.”