Media

Personal Agendas and Objective Reporting, Ed Style

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, Media

“Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.  Journalists should … distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.  Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics
In today’s day and age, it is often difficult to distinguish between real journalism and “citizen” journalism, between real reporters and bloggers, between real journalists and those who aggregate the news.  We expect our “respected” news outlets to hold their reporters and editors to the highest standards, and in return we come to trust those news items that appear on their front pages or at the top of their broadcasts as being unbiased and fair.
Since I was a child, after watching “All the President’s Men” for the first time, I put The Washington Post on that list of respected news outlets.  While I may not agree with all editorial or opinion pieces at the back of the A section, I always knew I could trust the news that was offered on A1.  Until now.
For those who missed it, over the New Year’s holiday the Post ran a page one piece titled “U.S. education officials lobbied against Starr for New York City schools post.” The topic is one that would interest virtually anyone involved in education policy.  Did the U.S. Department of Education inject itself in the new mayor of NYC’s choice for schools chancellor?  With Mayor de Blasio now looking to undo much of the reforms enacted under Mayor Bloomberg over the past 12 years, it is a fair and interesting question.
Only seems logical that such a piece would be written by someone like Michael Alison Chandler,  a terrific reporter who has done a great job covering national K-12 education news for WaPo.  Or Emma Brown, who has brought a great eye to covering DC Public Schools.  Or a number of other journalists who cover national news, NYC news, or politics for the esteemed broadsheet.
Instead, the byline belonged to Valerie Strauss, a veteran scribe for the Post.  Most know Strauss as the “author” of The Answer Sheet, a WaPo blog focused on education. I intentionally put “author” in quotes because so much of The Answer Sheet’s content is handing over the space to a range of individuals and advocates, reproducing their words.  Nothing wrong with that, it is all credited and sourced.  And The Answer Sheet fills an important role in our education news landscape.
The problem is objectivity.  For much of the past five years, The Answer Sheet has been focused on attacking U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the U.S. Education Department, and any and all associated with school improvement and education reform.  It is a bastion for the defenders of the status quo, and most who reach out to Strauss with an alternate perspective are left to spin their wheels.  The Answer Sheet borders on serving as an advocacy platform, and most in the field recognize that.  We accept that.  We know that Strauss has a particular opinion, their is a specific mission behind The Answer Sheet.  Her work has an agenda, intentional or unintentional.  Just as many would not accept Diane Ravitch’s blog posts as gospel, so too do we read Strauss with a large grain of salt.  
That doesn’t mean I don’t read it.  In fact, Eduflack often tweets out pieces from The Answer Sheet, believing they add to the public discussion and offer up a clear point of view (one I sometimes agree with, but often don’t.)
So my issue is the publication of a piece attacking the U.S. Department of Education and questioning to motives of the EdSec ran, without any actual source quoted in the piece.  After calling Duncan’s “lobbying” an “unusual move by the nation’s top education official,” Strauss reveals her smoking gun in all of this.  “Duncan spoke negatively about Starr to de Blasio in a discussion about a number of candidates, people familiar with the discussions said.”
That’s right.  Not a soul on the record.  Just “people familiar with the discussions.”  We don’t know if those are people in the room, people who heard from de Blasio after the fact, people listening against the door, or those who heard through their tin foil hats.  
Nor do we know what negative items were spoken.  Did Duncan go after Starr?  Did he run through a pros/cons list of the top five candidates?  Was he playing devil’s advocate?  Did such negative comments actually happen?  We just don’t know.
The SPJ Code of Ethics offers us two important items here.  The first is “Identify sources whenever feasible.”  The second is “Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.”  From the piece, it looks like the only “source” Strauss looked to put on the record here was Duncan.  As for Duncan, Strauss says he “did not return phone calls seeking comment.”  When it came to de Blasio (the other guy in the room for all this) he got a much less pointed “could not be reached for comment.”
Without question, Strauss has every right to write such a piece and the Post has every right to publish it.  But we should hold our media to a higher standard.  With The Answer Sheet’s track record, such a piece belongs on a blog or on the opinion pages, not on page 1.  And if WaPo editors deem the piece worthy of the front page, it should be held to a higher standard.  Someone on the record.  One of those “people familiar with the discussions” must be willing to have their name attached, and get the credit for taking yet another shot at the EdSec, right?  Or else lede with the far less juicy stuff about an ED staffer talking to friends about his concerns.
Or perhaps Eduflack is just expecting too much from the media and “respected” media outlets.  Instead of us all wanting to be Woodward or Bernstein or take a stand like the NYT did on the Pentagon Papers, maybe we all just want to be Matt Drudge.

Vitriol on Both Sides

Eduflack accountability, Media, PR

Last week, the good folks over at Politico Education Pro wrote an interesting piece on the discourse in the current public education debates.  Written under the header, Name-calling turns nasty in education world, the article by Stephanie Simon rehashed some of the name calling we’ve seen in the name of education and education reform recently.

There is no question that the rhetoric has gotten extremely ugly.  Simon highlights just a few examples, and even those examples don’t truly illustrate the level of vitriol out there, particularly when there are specific legislative fights or policy changes in process.
The issue, though, is not whether there is harsh rhetoric flying around the education corral these days.  We all know there is.  The issue is whether we accept the reality and acknowledge when things get out of hand.
As the former CEO of an education reform group, I’ll be the first to say there were things I said in the heat of the moment that I now wish I hadn’t.  The passion of the fight does that to one.  And while I am enormously proud of what we accomplished, and knew that the rhetoric I used was necessary in the moment, in reflection I wish I had chosen different words or framed things a little differently.  Doing so would have made the implementation of those reforms easier, pitching a larger tent, and would have reduced some of the extreme tension at the time.
But not everyone seems to see the issue through the same lens.  In response to the article, I engaged in a Twitter debate with one who has dogged me for years now.  His take of the article was completely different than mine.  He read the piece as an indictment of reformers and the reform movement for saying things that were completely inappropriate and offensive to educators.
When I pointed out that both sides were to blame, and both were guilty of the practice, his response was almost laughable.  Again, it was the reformers fault.  Those doing the work of angels were just speaking facts and truths. 
So I asked if he even read the article.  The parts about Diane Ravitch and her hateful words toward Parent Revolution (just one example the author could have used about Ravitch).  Or the truly hateful speech that came out of the mouth of Florida teacher Ceresta Smith that was directed specifically at Michelle Rhee.
His response?  They had to say those things.  It was the only way to respond to the reformers because they wouldn’t accept the facts and the realities.
And this is the great disconnect in the current education communications landscape.  There is no dialogue.  There is no discussion.  Instead, we are engaged in mutually assured destruction.  In an effort to control the headlines, get the blog posts, and gain the Klout scores, we say outrageous things in an effort to gain attention.  We try to position ourselves as the “smartest person in the room,” the only person with the facts and figures and data to win the argument.  We refuse to listen, and just think at the next retort or the next attack.
At the end of the day, those engaged on both sides of the education reform struggle, the “corporate reformers” and the “defenders of the status quo” agree on far more than they disagree.  So instead of the name calling and the mutually assured destruction, is there any hope for collaboration and some real, meaningful progress?  
Anyone?  Anyone?

Communicating in a Crisis

Eduflack Marketing, Media, PR

One of the hats Eduflack has worn over the years has been that of crisis communications counselor.  There is nothing more potentially devastating to a well-meaning organization than when a crisis (or a potential crisis) strikes.  How one handles those challenges can have implications far beyond the here and now.

When the communications sector discusses crisis strategies, though, the education space is typically overlooked.  Instead, it is sexier to focus on big corporations or technology or political crises.  But that won’t be the case next week at the National Press Club.
Next Tuesday, November 12, dear ol’ Eduflack will be part of a panel discussion at the esteemed Press Club.  When a Crisis Goes Viral: How Social Media Has Become Inseparable from Crisis Communications will offer a range of views from social media experts such as Leslie Aun (VP of communications at Venture Philanthropy Partners and former VP at Susan G. Komen for the Cure), Wendy Harmon (director of information management and situational awareness at American Red Cross), Jan Lane (director of federal government services at Deloitte Consulting), and following up the rear, yours truly with a couple of edutales to spin.  The session will be moderated by Jane O’Brien of the BBC.
It should be a fun time to discuss crisis situations spun out of control because of feeding frenzies on social media platforms.  If nothing else, you can hear me wax nostalgically about having to defend bomb-planting dolphins from a grassroots uprising led by a young Bill O’Reilly (yes, a true, and interesting, story).
If you are in the nation’s capital next week and want a great way to be entertained and to learn a little something something in the afternoon, register for When a Crisis Goes Viral.  Entertainment guaranteed.
 

I Want That School!

Eduflack accountability, Media, Parents

There are a couple of companies on TV that run commercials touting how they are different from their many competitors.  You may have seen them for both buying a car and choosing a frozen pizza.  The consumer is standing before a plethora of options, and starts identifying personal preferences.  When all is said and done, there is only one choice left.

What if we have that option with our public schools?  What is we were able to go and identify what we want from a school in a range of categories?  What if we were able to prioritize what issues are most important for us in choosing a public school for our child?
It may not be such a crazy question.  For residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (yeah, go Sox, Beard nation, yada yada) the Boston Globe has launched an online Massachusetts school calculator tool, called DreamSchool Finder.  (I know, not loving the name, but the intent is well meaning.)
At DreamSchool Finder, parents can choose the region of the state, the grade level of the child, and then get to look at five characteristics, giving them each percentages until the 100% mark is hit.  The choices include: Mathematics Growth, English Language Arts Growth, School Climate, College Readiness, School Resources, and Diversity.
So for those parents who care only about the test scores, they can be all about math and ELA growth and college readiness.  Those more concerned with the school culture can emphasize climate and resources.  
It is an interesting concept, and it is one that can significantly empower a parent or caregiver when used appropriately.  For families looking to relocate, it provides a tool for helping better understand which town may be best to lay down roots.  For others, it lets you see what schools might be doing it better, based on your percentages, and help you identify why so you can bring solutions to your own neighborhood school.
And if you had such a tool in a community that believed in complete school choice, it could be the holy grail.
Kudos to boston.com for offering up the resource.  Clearly, there is the need.  We should be working to develop more tools and providing more information so that parents are better informed on what is happening in their schools and better understand how other schools may be better suited to meet their own needs or preferences.

Is Anyone Pro-Privatization? Anyone?

Eduflack accountability, charter schools, Marketing, Media

Earlier this week, MSNBC posted a new video on its website.  It is from the Melissa Harris-Perry Show, with special guest Diane Ravitch touting her latest book (which in fairness, Eduflack hasn’t read).

While I don’t usually stop for such video segments, I was taken by the headline that MSNBC (the Lean Forward network) was putting on the segment.  The piece led with the screamer, “The Case Against School Privatization.”
Those who know Eduflack know that I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the education reform movement.  During that time, I got pretty immune to what folks would say about me or about reformers in general.  And over time, the repeated accusations of “privatization and profiteering” started to sound like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon to me.
But I paused when I saw it on a supposed unbiased news network.  And it leads to a very important question.
Is anyone out there actually advocating for the privatization of our public schools?
I offer this as a serious question.  Who is pro-privatization?  At least more privatization than we already have.  We have already privatized transportation (bus service) and school lunches and textbooks and professional development.  And last I checked utilities and such are still provided by private companies (many of whom actually draw a profit from it as well).
But is there anyone out there looking to turn public schools into private ones?
And please, don’t give me the charter school argument.  Whether one wants to accept it or not, charter schools are public schools.  Yes, they are an alternative to our traditional public schools.  But they are still public schools.  
So where are they?  Who are these horrible beasts that are looking to take our well-meaning public schools and turn them into private schools?  Who is seeking to take a neighborhood school and turn it into a home for J. Crew and the country club set?  Who is actually out there converting all of these public schools?  Who are these privatizers we should be so fearful of and who we are creating all of these supposed white knights to slay the privatization beasts? 
Truth be told, the only thing we have seen in recent years is private schools going public.  Look to our nation’s capital.  After the U.S. Congress pulled the plug on voucher funding, many of the Catholic schools that were serving the vast majority of voucher kids decided to convert from parochial institutions into public charter schools.  These Center City schools saw the need to continue their service to the community and to the kids they were educating, and publicized (if that is the right word) themselves.
While there is plenty in public education that we can debate and argue about, do we really need to throw privatization in the mix?  It is a cheap rhetorical trick meant to win over an uneducated population.  No one is rushing to convert public schools private.  Practically no one (at least no well-meaning reformers) are even talking about it. So why frame what should be an intelligent, well-meaning debate that way?
We need to spend more time engaging in meaningful dialogues about our schools and what we can do together to improve them.  Ad hominem attacks, fake arguments, and phony straw men works against that goal.  it may sell some books, but it does very little to help ensure that all our students receive a high-quality, meaningful public education.
 

Dream School, Seriously?

Eduflack charter schools, High School, Media
“Pregnant, neglected or bullied; the students all have one thing in common — each had a life experience that caused them to take an unexpected left turn.  Dream School’s celebrity teachers will have one mission — to excite these young minds, reignite their passions, and get them to graduate from a real, accredited high school.”
And so begins the introduction to Dream School, the latest television spectacle from the Sundance Channel, a subsidiary of the AMC Networks.  Based on the website, the show has been on for at least a month and a half (if we do the math from the six episodes up for viewing on the site now.  But dear ol’ Eduflack (a self-confessed television junkie) honestly hadn’t heard about it until this week.
The premise is fairly simple.  A team of “celebrities” decide to play teacher as they seek to change the lives of young adults in need of life changing.  For the enormity of the challenge, Sundance has turned to successful educators such as 50 Cent, David Arquette, Oliver Stone, and Jesse Jackson.  They are supported by a superintendent from California and three teachers (all from California charter schools, interestingly).
So it begs an important question.  Where is the public outrage on Dream School?  
For all of those who grow short of breath ranting about Teach for America and its lack of proper teacher preparation, where is the outrage of placing inexperienced and untrained celebrities in classrooms with the very definition of at-risk students?
For all of those who get red in the face questioning the value of charter schools, where is the outrage of only using teacher coaches who come from public charter schools?
For all of those who argue good teachers cannot overcome poverty and family situations, where is the outrage that a celebrity can step in and do the job that entire school system was supposedly unable to do?
For those who talk of overcrowded classrooms, where is the outrage that Dream School is essentially a one-to-one intervention?
For those who fear the “profiteering” on our public schools, where is the outrage over where all of the ad revenue for this new show is going?
And how can we pass up responding to a gem like, “But how will they perform as teachers to some of America’s toughest high school dropouts?”
Yes, our schools shouldn’t be test tubes.  But they also shouldn’t be the settings for reality television experiments.  Some of these students seem to have real problems.  They need knowledgeable, experienced educators who can provide them the support and attention they need.  Somehow, “no, I’m not a teacher, but I play one on TV” doesn’t quite seem to be the full answer these at-risk students need.

Where Are the Parents in Education Nation?

Eduflack CCSS, Media, Parents, school boards, Students, teachers

With day one of the 2013 Education Nation Summit in the books, and day two offering up a terrific array of speakers, one has to be impressed.  Throughout yesterday’s program, participants heard from many of the nation’s leading education voices — superintendents, national organization heads, entrepreneurs, innovators, and all-around visionaries.

Spotlights were placed on new initiatives designed to spark new thinking.  There was even a constant reminder of an ongoing student competition, seeking to signal the best of the best in young education innovation.
Today promises tales from the celebrity sector of education, as names such as Tony Bennett (the I Left My Heart in San Francisco singer, not the I Left My Post in Florida state supe) and Goldie Hawn slated to address the audience.
In watching the 1 percent of the education community, if you will, though, Eduflack was left with a lingering question.  Where were the parents?  Where were the voices of those caregivers left to decide which school provides the greatest opportunity for their kids?  Where were the mothers worried about school safety or the fathers concerned about their son dropping out without employment opportunities?  Where were the parents in the academical village?
As a lead up to the two-day summit, NBC now offers two town halls to address some of these stakeholder issues.  Education Nation first offered up a summit with students, which is always an eye-opening and interesting development.  It also provided a town hall for teachers, letting educators discuss many of struggles and concerns they are facing each day in the classroom.
One can argue that these two voices also needed to be front and center during the two-summit itself.  No, I’m not talking the celebrity teacher who is trying to make a name for himself with his latest crusade.  Nor am I talking about the student who is on the cusp of curing cancer before being named homecoming queen and student body president.  I’m talking about those very real voices who can speak to the struggles and the victories that we see in classrooms across the nation.
Those are the voices that should be in there at the New York Public Library.  As those in the know are discussing the impacts and intents of Common Core State Standards, we should also be hearing from parents concerned with the amount of testing their children receive and whether any of those assessments measure if their child is ready for the rigors of college or not.
As the leaders in the field are discussing blended learning, its merits, and how it presents itself, we should also be hearing from parents who wonder how they provide it to their child when they don’t have internet access at home or can’t afford the latest tablet that everyone is gushing about.
Yes, Education Nation plays a valuable role in these ongoing discussions that drive our community.  It is important for the movers and shakers to get together and hear these discussions and understand many of the policy and instructional issues facing our schools.
But it is just as important for voices from the rest of the nation to be heard.  It isn’t enough to say that parents and local school boards and other such actors can watch Education Nation on the Internet.  We need engagement, not just information.  We need a give and take of ideas, not just the consumption of data.
Eduflack doesn’t mean to pick on Education Nation. The same could be said about virtually any education conference or summit these days.  At least Education Nation makes the effort at convening students and educators beforehand as part of the kick-off town halls.
In reality, Education Nation is made up of millions of parents and caregivers and volunteers and educators and other stakeholders who are unable to get into the room.  How do we ensure that their voice is heard during the process?  It is a challenge NBC and its partners are up to, and it is a puzzle that the entire education community should be committed to solving.

Collaboration is Key

Eduflack Marketing, Media, PR

Five and a half years ago, I established Exemplar Strategic Communications to provide a new strategic vision for education organizations seeking to break through the white noise and have their voices heard.  Building off the the groundbreaking public engagement work done by Dan Yankelovich and Public Agenda, Exemplar focused on outcomes-based approaches to PR and public affairs, seeking to not just promote an issue, but to actually change hearts, minds, and behaviors as we improve the public education tapestry across the nation.

This work was strengthened by a number of related experiences along the way.  As executive director of the Pennsylvania STEM Initiative, I learned the value of building strong networks and promoting communications across a range of audiences.  As executive director of communications and public affairs for the American Institutes for Research, I was reminded of the enormous value of strong data.  And as CEO of ConnCAN, I worked with some of the best in the nation in advancing a strong advocacy agenda centered on equity and school improvement.
In reflecting on these experiences, one thing has been crystal clear.  Community engagement and improvement efforts are only successful through strong collaboration.  Working with others in pursuit of a common goal is king.  And there is nothing more rewarding than succeeding as a team, together driving the sort of change and improvement we seek.
That’s what makes today’s post so special to me.
I am happy to let Eduflack’s readers know that I have decided to join Collaborative Communications Group as a partner and that Collaborative is acquiring Exemplar Strategic Communications.  With the merger, Collaborative stands as the nation’s largest communications and strategic consulting firm focused exclusively on P-12 education issues.
For more than a decade, I have been fortunate enough to work with the terrific team at Collaborative on a range of issues — from principal empowerment to ESEA reauthorization to high school equity.  Founding Partner Kris Kurtenbach, Partner Terri Ferinde Dunham, and the entire Collaborative family have done a tremendous job building an organization that has worked with a veritable who’s who in the educations space, while delivering results that should be the envy of all in the space.
Why is Collaborative so special?  At its heart, Collaborative is passionate about helping improve public education within the United States and across the world through learning and collaboration, and communications management.  The consulting firm does it by focusing on the learning process, placing specific emphasis on connecting networks of people; creating, sharing and using knowledge; and engaging diverse stakeholders to create real solutions aligned to the values of the people affected by them.
Collaborative is probably best known for the work it does in the OST (outside of school time space), building long-term relationships with organizations and funders across the country to advance a national commitment to expanded learning approaches, opportunities, and outcomes. 
I am honored to be joining the Collaborative family, and looking forward to the next chapter in my Choose Your Own Adventure.  At Collaborative, I’ll be focusing on the work I so enjoy — strategic communications, organizational planning, content development, public engagement, and advocacy.  I will also continue to manage my Eduflack soapbox, as well as focus on the two education books (one I’m editing on scientifically-based reading instruction and one I’m writing on reforming education reform) that (cross fingers) will be completed by the end of the calendar year.
Thanks to all who have helped along the way and been a part of my journey to date.  I look forward to fusing collaboration to my education DNA.  Onward!

An Empowerment Interview

Eduflack Achievement gap, Media

How do we use public education to empower?  While we use the word “empowerment” a great deal in the educational trenches, there seems to be little discussion or understanding of what it actually means and how it truly applies to so many of our engagements.

Over at Education Sector today, Peter Cookson has a great interview with Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond.  In the piece, Darling-Hammond provides a deeper dive into the empowerment issue and how we can use education for empowerment.
Among the nuggets is this one, Darling-Hammond’s thoughts regarding our obsession with international comparisons:

People make wild claims about what other countries do.  So I looked at the high achieving countries … And guess what?  They do a lot to promote equity.  They ensure that children are well taken care of … Even when families have low incomes, there are safety nets to ensure that children are housed, fed, have health care, and access to good early learning opportunities.  They fund schools equitably.  They invest heavily in well-prepared teachers and school leaders for all schools.

ES offers up both a transcript of the interview, as well as a video for those who need the visual stimulation.  Definitely worth a visit.
(Full disclosure: Eduflack has worked with Linda Darling-Hammond on a range of topics for more than a decade.)

A Little Something Something About Timing

Eduflack assessment, CCSS, Media, PR, RTT

Today’s lesson is about timing.  More specifically, it is about how one times the release of announcements so that the media and key stakeholders take notice and hear the actual message that folks want to deliver.

Many of us have heard the tales that if you don’t want someone to know something, announce it over a weekend.  Or announce it over a holiday.  While the 24/7 news environment brought to us by the Interwebz, Twitter, and all those citizen bloggers has changed things somewhat, the rule is still pretty much the same.  
When making a media announcement, one should be mindful that the media, at least those covering education, primarily work the traditional work week.  You can expect them “on duty” from 9 or so in the morning until 6 or 7 in the evenings, Monday through Friday.  Afternoons are usually spent writing on deadline.  Most reporters are, of course, always on call.  But if you want to reach them, starting during those core times is a good first step.
So it is a major headscratcher to see last week’s announcement from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC.  PARCC is one of the two Common Core State Standards consortia, developing a comprehensive summative assessment to measure the K-12 standards adopted through CCSS.  The PARCC tests are seen by some as better aligned with the expectations of the US Department of Education and Race to the Top.
At any rate, late last week PARCC released a statement on the Race to the Top Technical Review and how it charted the RttT Assessment grant progress.  The finding was fairly simply, RttT found that PARCC was “generally on track,” the highest rating possible, according to PARCC.
The concern, though, was the timing of the release.  PARCC sent the announcement out on July 12, 2013, a Friday.  Email announcements were hitting reporter inboxes at 10 p.m. EDT.  So it begs the question, why dump an important and positive announcement late on a Friday night as Cinderella’s coach was turning back into a pumpkin?
Sure, one can chalk it up to bad timing.  To the release getting delayed for some reason unrelated to the announcement.  To delays in the world wide web.  All sorts of technical or manmade issues could be noted.  A cynic could even say that this was dumped late on a Friday night so that few would actually pay attention to it, not wanting to raise attention for the process of the consortia and testing in general at a time when “testing” and “assessment” are dirty words.
Regardless, we need to be a little smarter with our announcements.  PARCC’s announcement (along with the original RttT Assessment announcement) are important developments in our push toward adopting the Common Core and bringing meaningful summative assessments on line.  It deserves more than just the “document dump” treatment.  After all, any reporter wanting to cover this would now likely have to wait until Monday before someone is back in the office at Achieve or PARCC to follow up on the statement.
Nitpicking?  Maybe.  But with so many organizations and announcements jockeying to break through the white noise and have their issues heard by the media, one has to be media-friendly about the announcements.  Late Tuesday or Wednesday mornings are good.  Friday nights after prime time, not so good.  
Or maybe we just don’t want folks to know that PARCC is “generally on track.”