Marketing

How Do I Rank?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 



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

Standing Up to the Anti-NCLB Bullies

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCLB: The Great Debate?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign, Reading First

We’re seven months from the presidential primaries.  We’re 16 months from the 2008 presidential election.  So it only makes sense that last night was the “first” Democratic presidential debate.  (Those other three or four were just pre-season, I suppose).  Last night’s questions came in from “regular folks” through YouTube.  And if you believe Ed in ’08’s numbers, Of the nearly 3,000 questions that were submitted, 306 of them were about education. 


During the two-hour debate, one education-focused question was actually raised.  The loaded softball in question — “Would you scrap or revise the No Child Left Behind program?”  It’s a wonder CNN found time for it, what with the snowman concerned about global warming and all.


Eduflack will forget, for a second, that the questioner didn’t leave the candidates the option to stand up for the law, particularly since half the folks on the stage voted FOR it back in 2002.  And we’ll try to ignore the fact that only three candidates were able to answer the question, and that the one that defended the law (Chris Dodd) wasn’t actually asked to chime in (and was almost prevented from answering).


After listening to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson take up most of the “education time,” I must say I am truly disenchanted by the governor from the Land of Enchantment.  Either he doesn’t understand NCLB or he is distorting it for his own purposes.  Either way, it demonstrates how far Spellings & Co. need to go to effectively market and promote the federal education law.  ED is losing the PR battle on NCLB, and they continue to let the law’s critics define the terms of debate.  Last night was the perfect example. 

So how exactly did Richardson answer the NCLB question?  He raised four key points.  First, he attacked NCLB for taking funding away from low-performing districts and schools.  What?  If anything, NCLB — through SES, Reading First, and other initiatives — is doing the opposite.  It is putting additional funding in those schools that need it the most.  But Richardson seems to have bought into the status quo’s red herring that NCLB is a punitive tool only.

Second, he calls for a minimum teacher salary of $40,000.  I won’t quibble with him on this.  Effective teachers should be far better paid than they are now.  But with all of the crowing that NCLB has stripped local control from what was perceived as a local issue, is he honestly suggesting the federal government should get involved in setting teacher pay scales for school districts?  How does that work with current collective bargaining agreements?

Third, he said we need to focus on science and math and do what is needed to unlock the minds of those students who are struggling in those subjects.  Hear, hear!  NCLB does that, and talk of NCLB 2.0 calls for greater investment and attention to STEM issues.  I would ask though, governor, how you propose to identify the children whose minds are in need of unlocking without the strong assessments called for under NCLB?  We need strong, research-based assessments to ensure all students are learning the skills they need to succeed after they leave the schoolhouse doors.

And the final point?  This closer that is supposed to sum up his position and make the strongest case possible?  We need more music, dancing, and sculpture classes in our schools.  Pardon me as I shake the bewilderment from my head.  On a daily basis, we have members of Congress seeking to slash spending for reading — a non-negotiable educational building block — and the good governor wants to make sure we’re teaching Pottery Wheel 101?

If we’re going to debate education, and I mean truly debate education, let’s focus on the real issues of NCLB.  Let’s hear where the candidates stand on research-based instruction.  On the need for effective teaching.  On the benefits of continuous assessment and instructional improvement.  On data collection.  On content-rich professional development.  And on the need for measurable, demonstrable student achievement, the sort of achievement that ensures every child has the chance to succeed in school and in life.  That would be a debate I’d pay to see, and that would be one that would actually educate the voters and the Congress on educational priorities.

There was one bright spot to the sad two minutes devoted to education last night.  As Senators Clinton and Obama looked the other way on the question, Chris Dodd bravely stated, “Accountability is very important.”  Couldn’t have said it any better, Senator.  I just hope your colleagues on the rostrum heard you.
 

Waiting for NCLB

Eduflack AYP, HQT, Marketing, NCLB

NCLB 2.0 is shaping up to be education reform’s version of Waiting for Godot.  Those who were hopeful that something, anything might move by the end of this calendar year were severely disappointed to read yesterday’s Washington Post piece on NCLB past, present, and future.

The article itself is worth reading, and is worth commenting on.  As for the latter, I don’t see how anyone can frame it better than Eduwonk — http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/11/textbook.html. 

So what does the WP news coverage and Andy’s commentary really tell us?

* Major education reform requires bi-partisan support (at least at some level).  Sure, there were critics from both the right and the left from the get-go.  But with an advocacy team like Bush, Kennedy, Miller, McKeon, Boehner, et al, NCLB got the benefit of the doubt.  We all want to believe we can put aside partisan attacks to improve our schools.  2.0 is lacking that strong bi-partisan feel.

* NCLB is going to be a political punching bag for 2008.  Those who think that 2.0 will become law in an election year haven’t spent much time up on Capitol Hill.  Opposition to NCLB is strong.  Support for it needs to be stronger.  Name me a single senator or congressman — save for George Miller or Buck McKeon — who seem willing to put their reputations on the line to advocate for reauthorization of an improved NCLB.

* NCLB has been relegated to the role of rhetorical device.  Educators, researchers, and politicians use it to rail again a federal government seeking too much power.  Others use it as a straw man to justify the flaws and weaknesses of our current K-12 system.  Few of those still talking about it point to it as a tool of accountability and improvement for our public schools.

* NCLB is an inside baseball game.  It remains a discussion point for DC policy and political folks (and what exactly does that say about us?)  At testing time, you may hear some rank-and-file teachers and administrators bemoan NCLB testing and big brother, but it isn’t a day-to-day concern.

Eduflack has long said that NCLB was in desperate need of a strong marketing campaign.  If you really want to sell version 2.0, you need to remind audiences — parents, teachers, administrators, business leaders — of what they are buying and what return they’ll get on their investment.  No one is buying NCLB 2.0 because they look fondly on their original version.  But they will buy it if we separate the impact and the goals from the brand.  We don’t want NCLB, but we sure want student achievement.  We don’t want NCLB, but we want our schools doing what works.  We don’t want NCLB, but we want more effective teachers and more involvement from our parents.

We know what we want.  Will anyone sell it to us in an election year?

Reading Between the NCLB Lines

Eduflack AP, Marketing, NCLB, NGA, PR, SBRR

As most in the education reform world know by now, yesterday House Education Committee Chairman George Miller spoke on his thoughts about NCLB.  The highlights — NCLB will be reauthorized, NCLB will be revised and improved, and Miller has heard the “teaching to the test” critics.  The Washington Post has the full story — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html?hpid=sec-education

All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date.  The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so.  Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law.  If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.

The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words.  While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement.  He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.

Why is this so interesting to Eduflack?  Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools.  Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade.  We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way.  For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments. 

But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach.  Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools.  How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests?  How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later?  These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.

Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words.  As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation.  That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.

Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements.  Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom.  With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it. 

Making “Public” a Dirty Word?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR

For decades, America used to crow about its public school system.  We were the model that other nations aspired to.  From kindergarten through college graduation, public schools were meant to stand as a symbol of equal education and opportunity.

Today, however, the criticism over public schools is growing louder and louder.  The success of charter schools has further highlighted the flaws in some urban districts.  Vouchers are now allowing parents to opt out of the public school system in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Washington DC, and throughout Florida.  And NCLB has more parents and communities scrutinizing those public schools that fail to make AYP and fail to provide a high-quality, effective education to all.

So it is no surprise it has come to this.  According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “public” is now a dirty word when talking about our local schools.  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07192/800808-298.stm  Pittsburgh Public Schools is dropping “public” from its name, in an attempt to “brighten and strengthen” its image.

Eduflack is all for school districts doing what is necessary, rhetorically, to improve their image.  Schools need to instill confidence in the teachers, students, and families that are part of the school community.  We need to believe in the educators and leaders who head our schools.  And we need to trust our children are getting the high-quality, effective education that our taxpayer dollars are funding.

Does anyone believe that dropping the “public” improves the quality of education, or even the perception of the quality of education?  Does the franchise-ination of school names, as Pittsburgh Public Schools proposes, really do anything to improve the schools?  Of course not.

Yes, schools should simplify the message and making sure their goals are clear to every and any stakeholder audience.  That’s the only way you can successfully communicate reform.  And I’m all for Pittsburgh’s new tagline — “Excellence for all.”  Every student, including those in Pittsburgh, deserve excellent education and should be expected to demonstrate proficiency and excellence.

But you need more than a new tagline to improve your schools.  Such rhetorical devices are useless if one is not adopting the reforms and improvements necessary to deliver on the promise.  If Pittsburgh is promising excellence for all, it better be coming to the classroom with more than a tagline, a new logo, and a “streamlined” name for the school district.  It better bring the instruction, the interventions, the measurement, and methods for improvement that are needed for any school district to truly excel.

Without such content commitments, this is nothing more than empty rhetoric.  I appreciate that Pittsburgh officials believe that “public” has negative connotations with some.  Based on the performance of many public schools over the past decade, it should.  The most effective way to reverse that image is not with a new coat of paint or a new neon sign, though.  The most effective way to communicate “public” schools in a positive way is to show real, lasting, meaningful student achievement.  For our nation to succeed, we need to be proud of our public schools, not ashamed of them.

Does Creativity Matter?

Eduflack early college, High School, Marketing, STEM

In recent discussions of 21st century jobs, the focus is usually on science and math skills, problem solving, multi-tasking, and the ability to work in a team.  From there, the talk moves to postsecondary education and the much-cited stat that 90% of new jobs will require some college education?

Some critics of the STEM focus, like Checker Finn, have drawn attention to the need of a classically liberal arts education, one that includes civics and history along with science and math.  The goal being a nation of thinkers, not just a nation of workers.

So where in all of this discussion does the need for creativity come into play?  Honestly, Eduflack doesn’t know if he has heard the word used as part of the needs of a 21st century workplace until this morning, when he saw the following AP article posted on edweek.org on a conference held by Washington-based Creativity Matters.  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/16/13apseattle_web.h27.html

It is an interesting concept, tying workplace success to creativity and the ability use one’s imaginations.  And it raises larger questions.  How do you teach creativity?  How do you measure it?  What do you do with a linear thinker who follows the rules, and can’t “think outside the box?”  And are we really talking creativity, or do we mean those who solve problems and try different approaches?

In Eduflack’s mind, creativity is a term associated with artists and musicians and writers and others who express emotions and thoughts.  I don’t think I’d use it to describe someone working at a Boeing plant or writing code for Microsoft.  But maybe the word is taking on new meaning and new context.

Regardless, the focus on including creativity in K-12 instruction is an important one for one central reason.  It demonstrates that the recent push to link high school education to meaningful careers has taken hold.  We no longer have to convince the American people that a high school diploma and postsecondary education are essential components to a successful career.  We now know they are non-negotiables.

Instead, we now get to focus the discussion on what constitutes a high-quality secondary education.  Whether it be STEM education, rigorous and relevant instruction, classic liberal arts, or creativity 101, the talk is on what skills can be taught now to take advantage of opportunities tomorrow.  We’re not convincing people of why, but rather leading them down the path of how.

It demonstrates that progress has been made in marketing the need and effectiveness of high school reform over the past few years.  People get it.  Even without creative thinking, we now see that a strong education leads to a good job. 

Marketing NCLB

Eduflack AFT, Marketing, NCLB, NEA, PR, Spellings

On several occasions, Eduflack has advocated for a national “marketing” effort for NCLB, seeing public support and demand for the law as one of the only means to get it reauthorized with real improvements, but without significant overhaul.  Earlier this week, a reader asked, “Wonder what I would write for a NCLB marketing campaign. Isn’t Spellings a walking sound bite?”

Anyone who has been reading the ed blogs — particularly Alexander Russo’s — knows there’s been a lot of talk about the teacher unions’ ability to scuttle any talk of NCLB reauthorization this year.  AFT and NEA deserve a lot of credit for their execution of a good communications strategy.  They were able to control the NCLB story, keeping it an inside baseball discussion and limiting to a small collection of policy wonks, education organizations, researchers, and, at times, ed bloggers.  Thus it was easy for the House and Senate decisionmakers to table the issue for a new year.  The unions planned and executed an effort  that worked.  The set a goal, the set the terms of debate, and they dominated the discussion.  That’ll get you victory on just about any stage.

Which gets us back to the question about a marketing campaign.  Are communications victories won by sound bite, or won by solid strategy?  If we go with the former, Margaret Spellings should indeed be taking a victory lap on NCLB reauthorization.  Last year, she deemed the law, like Ivory soap, 99.99% effective.  And this year, she’s had many a good turn of phrase with the education media, the general media, Jon Stewart, and countless others.  Yes, she knows her message, nows how to stick to it, and knows how to get folks to listen to it.

The NCLBers are fine when it comes to message.  The law works.  It’s effective.  We have data to prove it.  Education improvement shouldn’t be flavor of the month.  Et cetera, et cetera.  But message is one of the last pieces to the effective strategy.  And in many ways, the U.S. Department of Education has skipped over many of the needed steps, in the hopes of advancing directly to Boardwalk and Park Place.

What’s missing?  Eduflack suggests a few key components to a solid communications strategy:

* Goals — Media coverage is not a goal for a communications plan.  Goals are things like effective implementation, reauthorization, teacher recruitment, etc.  Any campaign needs clear and achievable goals.  And we must recognize we can’t be everything to everybody.  If we have multiple goals, we may need multiple strategies to get there.

* Analysis and Application of Research — No, I’m not talking the student achievement data.  Year after year, we get public opinion surveys from PDK, NEA, and others charting NCLB satisfaction.  That data should be analyzed, broken down, and used as a foundation for communications planning.  It tells you what messages work, and what don’t.  And it provides third-party validation for communications activities.

* Audience Identification and Segmentation — Who are we talking to?  For years, NCLB was a dialogue between ED and educational researchers.  It should be a discussion on Main Street USA, not in the ivory towers.  Who is important to getting the law effectively implemented?  Who is important to getting it reauthorized?  It’s parents, teachers, business leaders, and community leaders across the country.  It may be easier dealing with the AFT then rank-and-file teachers, but those individual teachers are the ones who carry the message into the classroom.

* Message Development — Some like to call these sound bites, but sound bites are canned sentences.  Messages are the themes that all should be communicating.  Whether it be the SecEd or the Secretary of Labor talking about jobs, the message needs to be on the need for NCLB, the progress to date, and the impact it will have on education and economy for decades to come.

* Relationship Development — Be it the media, influencers, organizational leaders, or the like, relationships are key.  The days when ED could exclude organizations from the debate are over.  They need all the help they can get on NCLB, and need to build the relationships that result in that help.

Then we get into the PR 101.  Media relations.  Public events.  Conferences.  New media/Internet.  Speaking opportunities.  Etc.  These are the tactical pieces that ED tends to do well.  The key is to bring them together under one umbrella, so all activities are working toward a singular, clear goal.  If the tactic doesn’t help us reach the goal, then it isn’t necessarily worth doing.  Time is precious.  We use it on those activities that make a difference.

This is just the early outline of what an NCLB marketing plan needs to focus on.  Sound bites are great, but they are a tactic, not a strategy.  Just like the law itself, an NCLB communications plan needs goals.  It needs methods of measurement.  It needs feedback loops.  It needs highly qualified professionals.  It needs accountability.

Get a half-dozen communications professionals (with education policy knowledge) in a room for a day.  Set some programmatic goals.  Embrace the Yankelovich model for changing public behavior.  And you could have a real blueprint for selling NCLB across the nation, and moving the debate from inside the ed blob to onto Main Street USA. 

NCLB is all about doing what works.  This sort of approach works.  And it may be the only way we see NCLB reauthorization before the end of 2009. 

A Big Win for Us RF Zealots

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Eduflack has pulled no punches when it comes to Reading First.  I can’t say it any clearer — RF works.  The science is clear.  We know it works.  We know what it takes to get virtually every child reading at grade level.  We know what tools teachers need to engender reading success in the classroom.  The goal of RF was to take decades of proven-effective research, and put it to use in our classrooms.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  We apply the research completely and with full fidelity, and kids will read.

For much of the last year, though, RF critics have been piling on, sensing a soft-spot in the law.  We’ve dubbed the research and the program a failure because of poor execution on the implementation.  Yes, implementation has been poor.  But skepticism about moving research to practice has led many to pull the rug out from under the entire program.  Congress is looking to dramatically slash federal RF funding, and virtually everyone is parroting the phrase “RF doesn’t work.”

Over the years, we’ve expected groups like the Center for Education Policy to add to the funeral pyre of NCLB and RF.  So imagine Eduflack’s surprise when, this week, CEP comes out with a study detailing that RF is having a real, positive effect on student achievement.

Imagine that.  Despite all the implementation problems.  Despite the army of whole language researchers bashing the law from day one.  Despite the congressional inquiries and the growing chorus of doubting Thomases.  Despite all that, Reading First works.

What did CEP find?  In what was Reading First’s roughest PR year, the percentage of states deeming RF very successful rose from 33 percent last year to 40 percent this year.  Those who found it moderately effective rose from 27 to 38 percent effective.  This year, only 2 percent found the law minimally effective, and non found it not effective at all.

I challenge anyone to show me an education law that has posted such strong positive impressions across the board.  Nearly 80 percent believe the law to be very or moderately effective.  Nearly eight in 10.  That’s a presidential landslide we’ve never seen before.  That’s two and a half Hall of Fame hitters.  That’s a grade good enough to kill any classroom curve.

As an education community, we like to believe in urban legends and things that go bump in the night.  And perhaps that’s why we’ve heard mourning bells for RF for many months now. 

But there is also no shaking that we live in an ROI environment.  We all way to see return, particularly when it comes from our education dollars.  And if we are to get that sort of ROI, we need to be investing in the strategies and interventions that are proven effective.  We invest in the unproven, and our money is likely heading down a black hole.  If we pay for what works, we get results.  It really is a no-brainer.

We need to open our ears and listen to those who know best.  No, we don’t have to believe those in the U.S. Department of Education who ask for more RF moneys.  So let’s listen to CEP, and the more than 300 schools they surveyed who clearly stated RF works, and by extension needs proper funding.  Let’s listen to the International Reading Association — never a BFF of the Administration — who is similarly calling for increased funding for RF.  And let’s listen to the countless classroom educators who have raised their right hands and sworn that student achievement has increased because of scientifically based reading in the classroom.

Thanks, Jack Jennings and CEP for showing us, once again, that RF works.  Hopefully, this recent study gets us one step close to ending the debate on to use or not to use Reading First, and instead change the discussion to one of how to effectively implement RF.  We know it works.  Let’s put it to work for us.

How Not to Make Friends

Eduflack HQT, Marketing, NCLB, NEA, PR

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.