A little information and familiarity with buzz words can be a dangerous thing. Case in point — the comments found in Steven Dennis’ July 18 Roll Call article about the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Sure, we can all think of some areas of the law that should be strengthened or improved (Eduflack has his own wish list for enhancements). I just never thought I’d see a new name for the law leading the concerns of distinguished members of Congress.
In his piece, Dennis quotes House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who states, “No Child Left Behind has lost so much credibility that it needs to be rebranded.” Others joined the chorus that a new name helps solve many of the perceived problems.
Unfortunately, it seems its been quite a while since Clyburn was in a marketing class or a brand management workshop. NCLB’s problem is not its brand. For the most part, the NCLB brand is widely recognized by most key stakeholder audiences. And ask most folks on the street. They may not know ESEA, but they likely will recognize NCLB. Good or bad, NCLB is a known entity, a recognized brand.
Congressman Dale Kildee, in the same piece, says we need to change the name to demonstrate that Congress is listening to critics and making substantive changes. If we get to the core of this issue, though, it isn’t about making substantive changes … it should be about making substantive improvements. But I digress.
As we’ve seen in recent public opinion surveys, the more people learn about NCLB and its focus on student achievement, effective teaching, and proven instruction, the more they embrace it. Remind us of the law’s finer points, and we grow more hopeful and more accepting of it. We all want high-quality education. We all want assurances that we are using what we know works when it comes to teaching our kids. And we all want to know how to measure that effectiveness and hold all involved accountable. We want to give every student, in every school district the tools to succeed.
We’ve already seen ED change the NCLB logo in an attempt to recapture the hearts and minds of the education community. And the jagged red stripes have failed to do the job. Does anyone honestly think that a new neon road sign, as Kildee and Clyburn suggest, is the missing piece to getting effective, proven education reform into our classrooms?
Of course not. The issue here boils down to marketing communications 101. Secretary Spellings, Congress, and just about everyone else needs to educate stakeholders on 1) what NCLB is; 2) why it is important; and 3) the successes of NCLB to date. The more people know, the stronger their embrace of the law. Build on that. Educate them. Build on their positive feelings. Turn lukewarm feelings positive. And dispel the negatives. Do that, and you have stakeholders prepared and eager to implement the law, enforce the law, and improve the law.
Sure, you can rebrand NCLB. But doing so means giving in and admitting that we are incapable of leaving no child behind. If anything NCLB 2.0 should embrace its birth name, and remind teachers, parents, administrators, the business community, and, yes, policymakers, that we can, and should, help all children succeed. But to do it, we need to be stronger, we need to be more resolute, and we need to be more committed to research-based instruction, effective teaching, and meaningful assessments. That doesn’t come from a new name on the top of a piece of legislation. That comes from demonstrating long-term gains in student achievement. We know NCLB works. Now’s the time to teach that lesson to the whole class.
Marketing
An Effective Teacher in Every Classroom
When it comes to education reform, it is often easy to focus on the tree, but miss the forest. This has been particularly true with No Child Left Behind, where many have lent a keen eye to a particular stumbling block, failing to see how it fits into the greater improvement.
No where is this more true than in NCLB’s Highly Qualified Teacher provisions. HQT has been a lightning rod for the past five years. The provision seems pretty simple. That the teachers leading our classrooms should have background in the subject or subjects they are teaching. Seems common sense, no, that students should be taught by educators who have documented knowledge in the subject matter?
Of course, many NCLB opponents saw this as an affront to the classroom teacher. It was an attack on the thousands of teachers gather the strength to pick up the chalk and stand in front of the classroom day after day.
While many of us are bursting with anticipation regarding the potential reauthorization of NCLB this year, a diverse group of policymakers have stepped forward to add a little strength to the HQT provisions. Their message — effectiveness.
Yesterday, Senators Lieberman (CT), Landrieu (LA), and Coleman (MN) unveiled the All Students Can Achieve Act of 2007. Imagine, an Independent, a Democrat, and a Republican all joining together to advocate for education reform and improvement. It’s enough to bring a tear to the eye of a cynic like Eduflack.
All hold my tongue on the introduction of another acronym (ASCA), but the messaging behind this announcement is brilliant in its simplicity. To borrow from Lieberman’s press release (thanks This Week in Education), the law is designed to “achieve student growth by focusing on what’s most important: achieving results in the classroom and ensuring effective teachers,” “encourage high standards throughout the country and better align the curriculum of schools across America,” and “focuses on closing the achievement gap by holding schools accountable for the performance of all students and providing resources to address this gap.”
Three noble goals. All achievable. All necessary to improve our nation’s public schools. And all common sense to the average taxpayer. Who is going to stand up and say we shouldn’t focus on achieving results in the classroom? Who’s opposed to high standards and aligned curriculum? And can anyone say that closing the achievement gap is a waste of our time?
Building off of the recommendations of Aspen’s NCLB Commission, this trio of senators are proposing legislation that will both strengthen NCLB as a whole and finally return the volleys from those critical of HQT. How? Instead of setting the bar at certification, teachers are now going to be measured on their effectiveness. What a novel concept.
Kudos to ASCA’s parents for offering up real ideas on how to improve NCLB. And a round of applause for those willing to acknowledge that the ultimate measure of ed reform effectiveness is improved student achievement, including Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee for lending their support to the initiative. Results matter. Kids don’t succeed in school and in life because of well-meaning intentions. They succeed because effective teachers taught them, assessed them, and ensured that they achieved.
Don’t believe me? Just try and find one good teacher who doesn’t measure themselves by the success of their students.
If a Tree Falls in The Ed Forest …
If a press release is issued — one that is pithy and interesting and chock full of new ideas and meaningful policies — but is not reported on by the media, was it ever really released? Does such an announcement make its way into the public space if its intended audience (the media) choose to ignore it?
Over at www.eduwonk.com, Mike Goldstein asks the question, reflecting on the relatively lackluster announcements that have come from the Democratic candidates for president, both at the NEA Convention and in general.
Anyone who expected real news to come out of an NEA Convention clearly has never attended one. Between all of the “brother this” and “sister thats,” there is rarely a moment to talk about true reforms and improvement. The Democratic candidates who paid homage before the House of Reg did so with one main object in mind — do no harm. They went in and threw red meat to the lions — teachers deserve more pay, testing is unfair, etc., etc. Hardly the action items deserving coverage in a weekly reader, yet alone a national newspaper.
The rare exceptions — Obama and Huckabee. Obama followed a pattern he has adopted in previous union visits, speaking truth to power and discussing issues that don’t make the top five approved texts with the membership. At NEA, he spoke of equity pay, a topic NEA has fought for decades, and a topic that virtually every parent, community leader, and taxpayer believes in. The same sort of merit pay systems that almost every other white collar job is governed by. Obama got the headlines because he spoke on a taboo topic (or taboo for the audience) and he did so with strength and passion. The challenge will be what he does with it next. Was it rhetoric for the day, or was it policy?
As for Huckabee, he get the “A” just for showing up. No one expects Republicans to come to the House of Reg. After all, the NEA always endorses Democrats. They lend all of their organizational might, fundraising, phonebanks, GOTV activities, et al to the Democratic candidate. But that didn’t deter Huckabee for attending, and for speaking his mind. In doing so, he established that education is an important issue for him, and he is willing to work with all parties to bring real reform forward. Republican or Democrat, every governor works with teachers unions. Huckabee reminded the NEA of that, and reminded them that he was fair to them all those years in Arkansas.
But back to Eduwonk’s question at hand — when do press releases get the play they deserve? Goldstein hypothesizes they must be edgy and quotable. Let me tell you, Eduflack has written thousands of press releases over the years. Most have made their way into the news coverage; some have fallen flat. And of those that have fallen flat, most have been quotable. And some have even been edgy (or as edgy as the topic may allow). So what was the missing ingredient?
If our presidential candidates, our education organizations, our influencers, and just about anyone else hoping to find a voice in the education reform forest wants to be heard via press release, they need to remember a few things:
* Keep it short. Nothing that can be said in a page is any better in three or four pages.
* Keep it timely. Relate it to news of the day or issues that you know the media is reporting on.
* Know your target. Be sure you are sending it to the right person, and you understand the issues and topics that reporter has written or broadcast on in the past.
* Grab attention. A great quote, a new statistic, or even a new spin on an old issue is likely to gain a second look from the recipient.
* Follow up. Simply hitting send on the email program does not result in effective dissemination. You need to follow up with the reporters you are hoping to entice with the story.
* Say something. Press releases are not the vehicles for “me too.” If you want a reporter to take the time to skim your announcement, you better be saying something original and interesting.
* Don’t waste time. Reporters are getting hundreds of releases a day. Most end up in the deleted bins of their emails. If you aren’t saying something important, don’t say it. You don’t want a reputation for sending non-news or for wasting the time of reporters by recycling the same releases, again and again, with a new headline. Your issue may be important to you, but if you don’t entice the reporter with the new meal, do you really expect them to get excited with leftovers?
* Know your end game. Is the purpose coverage in the local media? Are you softening the ground for a harder announcement in a few weeks? Sending a trial balloon on a controversial issue? Or just reminding the media you exist? Any release needs to help you reach the ultimate policy or political goal.
That being said, what can today’s presidential candidates say to gain attention from the media? Clearly, they haven’t figured out what that is yet. Other than an early ed policy here from Hillary, and a phys-ed policy there from Richardson, a number of “me toos” on the need for more student loans, the current chattering on presidential education reform has been weighed and measured, and, quite frankly, it has been found lacking.
If Eduflack were writing for one of these presidential candidates, he would follow the Obama mantra of being bold and audacious and really take the time to leave a rhetorical mark in the education forest. How?
Go into the NEA conference and applaud NCLB for leveling the playing field, boosting student achievement, and finally giving every student the opportunity to succeed. Sure, more must be done to strengthen the law. But the law is good, and the law works. Worried about getting attacked? Senator Kennedy’s got your back.
Call on ACE to ensure that college credits are universally transferable, and that a postsecondary credit earned at an accredited community college should be taken at value at an state or private institution. Need some help articulating? Just take a look at the policy Ohio has been working on.
Acknowledge that public education has changed a great deal in recent decades, and that a system that incorporates traditional public schools, charter schools, and vouchers can work, and work well, when it has the full support of the community and the school system. The goal is a high-quality education for all students. It shouldn’t matter who is delivering the education, as long as all of our children are getting it. Only then will it be taxpayer money well spent.
Listen to the NCLB Commission and demand that HQT provisions be changed to include a measure of effectiveness. A good teacher gets her students learning and prepares them for success, both in school and in life. HQET need to recognize that.
Speak out on the need for instructionally based preK, where students learn more than just social adjustment skills. Recognize that ELL education is a necessary component of any urban education program, and if incorporated effectively, can boost student achievement. Demand that SES funds be used on proven methods that directly correlate to increased performance.
And finally, plant a big ole sloppy wet kiss right on Reading First. We know it works. Its been proven effective. Even RF opponents are calling for full funding of the program. Demand that Congress stop playing politics, restore full funding for RF, and work with Congress and ED to ensure that the money is being effectively spent and that any classroom receiving even one RF dollar is implementing SBRR with fidelity.&n
bsp;
While Eduflack is unlikely to get out of a Democratic primary with an education platform like that, it is one that works, it is one that will resonate with the media and with the public, and, most importantly, it is one that will make a real difference in terms of improving student achievement. For those 17 individuals still mixing it up for their parties’ nominations, please feel free to crib even one of these policy planks for your campaign. I guarantee you, if positioned the right way, it can be rhetorical gold. And it may even improve the quality of public education in the process.
Yes, Virginia, Reading First is a Success
Reading First works. I don’t know how many times I can say it, or how many different ways to say it. You’ve heard it from Eduflack over and over again. When implemented effectively and with fidelity, scientifically based reading boosts reading skills in virtually every student. It prepares them to succeed throughout their academic careers. And it empowers students for the rest of their lives.
For the past year, virtually all talk about Reading First has veered away from that basic, but critical, fact. Flaws in RF implementation, coupled with the growing jockeying for the RF dollar, created a hornet’s nest in public education. As a result, Congress is talking about slashing the funding for Reading First. Forget the evidence. Forget the proofs. Forget the real-life impact it has had on classrooms and kids across the country. The program is controversial, so some are looking to dump it — despite the very real fact that RF works. At a time when we so desperately need to improve reading skills and student performance in our schools, should we really be abandoning a program that has no equal when it comes to effectiveness and impact?
We often lose sight of what works because of the rhetorical and political clouds that swirl. And RF is the perfect example of this. Kudos, then to the Weekly Standard for Charlotte Allen’s piece on the impact of SBRR in the Commonwealth of Virginia. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13850&R=1143716CE7
Yes, Eduflack is unapologetic in his support for, belief in, and defense of SBRR. And sometimes that passion gets in the way of effective communication. For the life of me, I just can’t understand why anyone would oppose a program that ensures that only effective, proven instruction be used in our classrooms. If we expect all students to succeed, we need to provide all students with proven-effective programs. We need to give all students instruction that works. Plain and simple.
Allen’s piece is a great example of successful communication, and shows how to talk about SBRR in a way that would touch virtually any audience. First, she is able to personalize the issue. Reading research is a tough subject to wrap one’s hands around. Allen is able to take this complex story, and break it down to the simplest of terms — how SBRR has impacted a real school and real students that many had already written off. Second, she confronted the opposition. By including some of RF’s strongest critics, and refuting their criticism, she demonstrates that RF can stand up to both scrutiny and attack.
In doing so, Allen has provided the U.S. Department of Education with a terrific example of how RF needs to be sold to gain reauthorization. Examples like Ginter Park Elementary School can be found in the districts of virtually every congressman and in the states of every senator. Tell, those stories, and let our elected officials explain why they won’t continue to support those schools, those teachers, and those kids.
Hopefully Spellings and her crew will see that Allen gave NCLB and RF the bumper sticker it has been looking for. Reading First: The Most Successful Federal Education Program in History.
Or for you Simpsons fans, “RF: Best Education Program Ever.”
Pay for Play
In marketing communications, there is no more important (and often misunderstood) term than ROI, or return on investment. We all want to know our money is being wisely spent, that we have results to show for our communications activities, and that such results are meeting the overall organizational goals.
In PR, a common mistake is thinking that media coverage is success. But if you can’t translate that coverage into increased sales, increased enrollment, increased membership, or increased donations, has the communications really met the organizational goal?
This is particularly true in education. Companies pay big money to advertise in education trade publications, exhibit at conferences and events, and just to get its organizational name or product associated with the big education story or education reform trend out there. While it may result in media coverage, such coverage is often gained at the expense of the brand and the value proposition.
That’s what makes today’s NY Times article on the Sustainable Operations Summit all the more interesting (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/education/10summit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). The story is simple to tell. Sign up as a sponsor of the Summit, and organizers (CraigMichaels Inc. is the brainchild here) will guarantee 15 one-on-one meetings with decisionmakers from school districts or IHEs across the country.
At first blush, some may find the approach a little unseemly. But if you get under the hood, you see the effectiveness of the communications vehicle. You ensure that you are delivering your message directly to those who can make a decision. You are positioned to directly address their concerns and solve the problems that are keeping them up at night. And you have the ability to tailor your discussion directly to their demographics, needs, and expected outcomes. That, boys and girls, is almost the textbook definition of effective communications.
We all know it is harder and harder to get one’s message through to those we need to reach. There are too many filters, too many barriers, and too much white noise to be eternally effective. As long as the audience knows what it is signing up for (such as committing to attend such one-on-one marketing pitches), where’s the harm? It is far more transparent than off-site conference events or the junkets that have plagued the medical industry for years.
No matter what tactic or approach one uses to deliver the message, at the end of the day, success only comes when you have a strong message, strong proof, and a compelling story. For education reform organizations and companies, change doesn’t come from a one-on-one meeting. Yes, such meetings may open the door. But you can only keep it open if you can deliver and demonstrate, with consistency, that you are improving learning and student performance. And ain’t that a great conversation starter for those one-on-ones?
The Importance of Information
The ETS study on NCLB relayed important data on public opinion of the federal government’s role in K-12 education. As Eduflack relayed in its previous post, those findings should (and need to) be used as the cornerstone for a national public engagement campaign on the positive impact of NCLB.
But the ETS data raises an interesting question — Why is ETS’ data so different than the NCLB polls conducted by organizations such as PDK or Scripps? The latter two organizations offered crystal-clear data that showed public support for NCLB was rapidly dwindling. How can ETS paint such a different picture?
In a word, the difference is information. To ETS’ credit, it defined NCLB in its questions. It allowed those being surveyed to frame their answers around key lead-in information. It characterized ETS as closing achievement gaps, setting standards, providing teacher funding, and dealing with failing schools. Armed with that information, NCLB scored a very favorable or favorable ranking.
In the PDK and Scripps surveys, they simply ask those on the other end of the phone to render a verdict on NCLB, based on what they knew before the phone rang. And for most, what they know is limited to what the media (or a community curmudgeon) has told them. That never-ending loop of criticisms against the law is bound to stick with many. After all, conventional wisdom says if you hear something seven times, by the eighth time you’ll believe it.
This is a great lesson for any individual or organization looking to foster education improvement at virtually any level. We all know why our reforms are important and why we know they are effective. We know they work, and we know others need them. But we if don’t extol those virtues, if we don’t detail the positives, and if we don’t define the benefits, we’re simply the best kept secret on the reform playground.
Change requires self promotion. Not only do you have to improve the status quo, but you have to make sure everyone and anyone knows what you did, why you did it, how you did it, and how they can model it. Only then are you starting to make a difference.
Getting to Know You …
Eduflack has been holding off on commenting on the ETS survey first reported by EdWeek last week (http://www.educationweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/20/42polls.h26.html). The reason for the delay was simple. While the data has a lot to say, we wanted to see how it is framed in the media.
Surprisingly, ETS’ public opinion poll on No Child Left Behind did not get the coverage it deserved. Over the past several years, NCLB has gotten pummeled in the media. Unfunded mandates. State lawsuits. Multi-million-dollar political campaign waged by NEA. And the ongoing drumbeats of concern about management, implementation, funding, accountability, and just about any other educational buzzword that can be thrown around.
With such publicity, its a wonder that NCLB hasn’t just been left for dead. That’s what makes ETS’ findings so remarkable. What ETS found was that the more people learned about NCLB — its intentions, its goals, and its successes — the more they liked it.
Funny that. When people hear about NCLB’s attributes, they like it. They like focusing on student achievement. They like holding our schools and decisionmakers accountable. They like implementing strategies that are proven effective. They like knowing that our schools are working.
What does this tell us, as Secretary Spellings continues to prepare for NCLB reauthorization? It reiterates what Eduflack has said for years. NCLB is in desperate need of a heavy duty PR campaign extolling the virtues of NCLB and the positive impact it is having on students, teachers, and communities across the nation. It needs a pure marketing campaign that sells what Americans really, really want — school improvement.
ETS provides ED the mission statement for moving NCLB forward. This is a pure public engagement campaign, requiring a single message, delivered to multiple audiences through multiple mediums.
The message — NCLB works, and we need more of it.
The audiences — parents, teachers, school administrators, community leaders, the business community, and policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels.
The mediums — print media, radio, television, the Internet, outreach to community groups, information dissemination through membership organizations, town hall meetings, conference presentations, and virtually any other way to spread information at the grassroots. (Kudos, by the way, to Congressman Buck McKeon, who used the ETS numbers to educate his House colleagues on why NCLB needs to be reauthorized. He took the message directly to a key audience, not waiting for the media to do so.)
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again. NCLB reauthorization depends on changing the debate and focusing on the benefits of NCLB and the positive impact it has had on real classrooms and real kids. Few seem to understand that. But that is the simple truth here. We want our schools to be better. We want our kids to do better. And NCLB is the path to both.
David Hoff at EdWeek summed it up best — “The more Americans learn about the No Child Left Behind Act, they more they like it.” It’s a shame that all of those media outlets who have ravaged NCLB for years have yet to give the ETS study its due.
How to Get Kids Reading
Successful communications requires an integrated approach. There’s research, messaging, media relations, community relations, etc., etc., etc. There is no magic bullet, one-easy-step solution when it comes to communicating education reform. You need multiple approaches, firing at multiple times, hitting multiple audiences with multiple messages. When executed properly, that reform engine can really hum.
No where is that more true than in improving reading skills in our schools. We know what to do. We’ve done the research. We’ve assessed effectiveness. And we’ve seen it work in states, districts, schools, and classrooms across the nation. Yes, scientifically based reading research, or SBRR, works. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Eduflack is often asked if it is even possible to take meaningful, proven research and put it to use in the real world. Heck, this week’s Education Week has an opinion column on the general failings of moving education research into practice. The battle to get SBRR into our schools shows it is not only possible, it can be successful. We know it works. We know how to successfully move it into practice. And we know how to communicate what to do, how to do it, and what to expect if you do it right to those audiences who need it the most.
Don’t believe me? Check out the book “Why Kids Can’t Read: Challenging the Status Quo in Education” and its companion website, www.whykidscantread.com. Full disclosure, Eduflack is a contributing author to the book. But even if you don’t want to read my chapter on successfully working with the media, it is still chock full of personal stories and real-life experiences on diagnosing the problem, finding the right allies and advocates, and effectively communicating for change until the system is improved.
Reform is hard. Finding a blueprint that helps build understanding for the key levers for education reform and school improvement makes it just a little easier.
A Clear Ask from the Big Easy
It’s a rare day when Eduflack is surprised by a proposed marketing tactic in education reform. Too often, we hear a soft sell, where folks are just unwilling or unable to say what they are looking for. And without delivering that specific ask, many of those soft sellers are unsuccessful in reaching their goals.
Ed Reform PR and Marketing 101 is easy. Know what you want. Know who to ask. Know what to ask them to get it. It takes a moment to learn the lesson, and a lifetime for many to get comfortable enough to offer a clear, compelling ask.
That’s why it was so refreshing to hear from New Schools for New Orleans (www.nsno.org) this evening. The goal is clear. NSNO is looking to help incoming Supe Paul Vallas rebuild New Orleans’ schools. NSNO is trying to help build school capacity in the Big Easy. To do that, they are looking to offer grants to teachers and school leaders to support the rebirth of New Orleans public education.
They know what they want — to amplify the call for true educational leaders and visionaries to contribute to the rebirth. They know how to sell it — caging their call with the on-the-ground efforts of KIPP, Teach for America, the New Teacher Project, New Leaders for New Schools, among them. And they managed to sell their call to arms to a cynic like Eduflack.
So we’ll break from our regular analysis and critique to just share the information and let it sell itself. The NSNO Incubation Grant offers $10,000 a month to a founding school leader, as well as significant network and technical assistance and exposure to great school models. The grant app is available at www.nsno.org, and more information can be had by emailing Gia at gia@nsno.org.
It’s easy for all of us to talk about what’s wrong with the schools or even to comment on how to improve the schools. It’s far more difficult to let our actions match our rhetoric. So for all of those dedicated educators, those reformers looking to build a better mousetrap, or those who are just looking to offer a little hope where there was none previously, go give the NSNO and the efforts to rebuild the schools in New Orleans a second look.
Great Test-pectations
Much of this week’s education attention has been focused on the CEP’s findings that No Child Left Behind is indeed effective. Though many have gone out of their way to mitigate the findings, offer up alternative explanations, discount the impact, or generally change the fact, one thing is certain. NCLB does work. In those states where CEP found student achievement gains, there is only one common denominator — all of those states have made NCLB-based reforms. NCLB may not be the only reason for the successes, but it is undoubtedly a major driver behind the improvement.
More interesting, though, was Ledge King’s piece (with an assist from Greg Toppo) in USA Today, looking at the broad discrepancies of testing benchmarks across the states. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-06-06-schools-main_N.htm
At the very heart of NCLB was the commitment that every American student deserved the opportunity to succeed. That was how the law was marketed. Regardless of race or income or neighborhood, every student is afforded the opportunity to learn, to achieve, and to succeed, both in and beyond their K-12 experience.
But in the Gannett analysis, King finds that such an opportunity is still a goal, and not necessarily a reality. The beauty of federal education reform is that measures of achievement and success are expected to be uniform. Instead, as King reports, we see that reading achievement in Mississippi versus achievement in Massachusetts couldn’t be more different. And those differences are going to be even more acute when it matters — in postsecondary education and in the workplace.
Perhaps that’s part of the problem. Even for those in the know, NCLB is perceived as an elementary school law. With its focus on elementary school reading and middle school assessments, it is seen as far more Click, Clack, Moo than The Sun Also Rises. An unfair focus, sure, but public perception is the new reality.
The thousand-dollar question is how do we take what we know from CEP and others and use it to address the problems that King has identified. The answer is an easy one. It may not be one that Secretary Spellings is particularly fond of, but the single greatest way to truly level the playing field and fulfill NCLB’s mission of providing all students an opportunity for success is found in two simple words — national standards.
At the end of the day, student proficiency is student proficiency. Achievement should not have a geographic accent. It shouldn’t be mitigated by per-pupil spending ratios. It shouldn’t be defined by the lowest common denominator. And it surely shouldn’t be disaggregated away. Achievement is achievement. Success is success. It doesn’t matter if it the MCAS, the SOL, NAEP, or any other single assessment tool. Student proficiency needs to be a common, universal measure. It is the only way we can ensure every American student is reading at a proficient level in the fourth grade, prepared for the rigors of our changing high schools, and ready for the opportunities available in either postsecondary education or career. If education is the great equalizer, its measures of that education need to be equal.
That’s how one effectively sells national standards to the teachers and parents who are skeptical of the federal government’s ability to effectively implement and manage meaningful education reforms. We don’t want to hear about statistical analyses, variations, and experimental models. We want to know that if our kid is deemed proficient in reading, that means he is able to read at the same level as an average fourth grader in Oregon, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. When she gets a B in Algebra II, we expect that a B in our school equals a B in LAUSD, Chicago, Dallas ISD, or DC Public Schools. We might not say it, but we assume our children meet a common standard when their academic abilities are assessed. And we depend on it, believing those assessments mean our children are able to keep up with any student in college or compete with any graduate for a job.
So how do we talk about it? At the end of the day, national standards are borne out of national policy. NCLB is that policy. Thanks to CEP, EdTrust, and a number of other education organizations, we have our messaging. It works. NCLB works. National education reform works. Reading First works. Scientifically based education works. Results-based teacher training and instruction works.
It works because it is effective. It works because it generates results. It works because it established a national standard for teaching and learning. And we can now see it working in states, districts, schools, and classrooms just like those in our neighborhood. No getting around it — NCLB works.
And that’s the marketing slogan. That’s the soundbite. That’s the bumper sticker. NCLB works. Data proves it. Teachers and administrators and parents and students have embraced it. Curriculum and professional development has been built around it. Critics have tried to tear it down for five years, to little avail. And you know what, NCLB still works.
The general communications mantra is to keep it simple, and it just doesn’t get any simpler than that. The law is effective, and there is the data and the emotional connection in classrooms around the country to prove it. Now ED just needs an effective messenger to deliver it. How hard can that be?
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 