NCLB

“One of These Stories Doesn’t Belong … “

Eduflack NCLB, NEA, PR

Any devoted student of Sesame Street knows the segment — “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn’t belong.”  We used it to differentiate shapes or to separate the dogs from the cats.  Who knew it would come in handy with regard to recent NCLB commentary in two of the top papers in the nation.

So let’s look at those three articles.  First we have an editorial in the Aug. 7 Washington Post calling for reauthorization of NCLB, with a particular focus on Congressman George Miller’s recent comments of his push to improve NCLB.  Second, we have an editorial in USA Today the day before, also calling for the reauthorization of NCLB and support for increased accountability in our public schools system.  And finally, we have NEA President Reg’s Weaver’s response in USA Today, where he claims our students are worse off today than they were five years ago when NCLB was signed into law.  http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/opposing-view-k.html?csp=34

Obviously, Weaver’s sentiments are not like the others.  Surprisingly, both USA Today and WaPo have written articles recently about some of the shortcomings of NCLB.  Both entered into their commentaries with their eyes wide open, knowing the strengths and weaknesses.  And both came away calling for a continuation of the law, recognizing the long-term benefit of increased accountability and a commitment to boosting student achievement across the board.

The past few months have provided all involved in education reform the opportunity to identify ways to strengthen NCLB.  How can we make assessment more meaningful?  How do we cultivate and support effective teachers?  How do we ensure our kids are leaving school with the skills they need to succeed in life?  How do we truly improve our K-12 system?

All good questions.  All questions that deserve strong public debate and meaningful consideration by key stakeholders.  And all questions that should be front and center when communicating on the needs of NCLB 2.0.

Yet, despite these needed discussions, Weaver decided to play the same ole record of opposition.  He says school administrators are saying teaching science is a waste of time, which is laughable since science assessments will be introduced nationally next year, joining our reading and math tests.  We’re giving subjects other than math and reading short shrift, he says, at a time when states and school districts are investing major energies into STEM education efforts and relevant high school instruction.  And then the king of urban legends — our focus on student achievement doesn’t improve student learning.

Some rhetoric just gets stale before its time, and that is definitely the case here.  Weaver represents nearly 3 million teachers across the nation.  Those teachers deserve better.  They deserve more.  They deserve a singular focus on how they can help improve NCLB, improve the quality of teaching in the United States, and improve the professionalism of the profession.  That only happens when you are committed to improve, and when you are committed to have that improvement measured, analyzed, and shared across the industry.  Accountability is the key to all.

Instead of fretting and grousing about a law passed five years ago, NEA should be focused on improvements that benefit their teachers and benefit their schools.  Weaver should be talking about how NEA would want to see teachers evaluated and how best to tie student achievement to teacher effectiveness.  The rhetorical focus should be on what can and should happen, not on what did or did not happen.

One of these things clearly doesn’t belong.  Weaver is trying to rehash the educational skirmishes of 2001 that NEA and its breathren lost.  USA Today and WaPo are talking about moving forward and improving a well-intentioned law.  The latter is the only way we can get to the sunny days of NCLB 2.0 Street.  

Telling a Good Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Teach our Children Well

Eduflack DCPS, NCLB

Anyone involved in education knows that children look to model their behaviors after the adults in their lives.  We watch what we say, what we do, and how we interact with others.  Even the youngest of children can start parroting the behaviors of parents and authority figures.  And I say that as a proud father of a one-year-old boy who will try to mimick and action or sound I make.

At the same time, those in education policy know the value of modeling “best practices.”  We learn from what others do well.  We benefit from their experiences, crafting our actions and words around what has worked, and what has not, for those in similar situations or those dealing with similar demographics or similar concerns.  When enacting reforms, we inevitably talk about who has done the same thing and reaped the benefits.

But it is just baffling what DC education officials have done.  For those who have missed it, The Washington Post led the charge in pulling the curtain back on this doozy.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050802047.html?nav=emailpage  The Mayor’s famed takeover of DCPS seems to be well rooted in the bustle of North Carolina.

No one is questioning the merits of Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s strategic plan.  They are a top school district.  But what does it say to the teachers and students of DCPS when Mayor Fenty and his staff can’t do their own work?  What message does it send when you are cribbing from the better prepared school system in the room?

I recognize the Mayor has issued his apologies.  And I know that his staff has been run through the ringer by the media, by elected officials, by the education blob, and by just about anyone who seems to care about the fate of DCPS.  They made a mistake.  And their words and actions sent the wrong signal to those who are trusting them to do right. 

But what does all this mean for DCPS?  How does one effectively talk and write about the future of DCPS after an “issue” such as this?  How does the Mayor effectively communicate his plan for the future of DCPS at this stage?

First, he needs to publicly embrace the notion that DCPS should be modeling their words and actions after a number of school districts.  His error was limiting himself to Charlotte.  Charlotte-Mecklenburg is a good district.  But it is not Washington, DC.  There are size differences, budget differences, demographic differences, and vast political differences.  What may work in Charlotte might not work in DC.  So let’s not put all of our eggs in become Charlotte-Mecklenburg Version 2.0.

Instead, DC should be modeling and promoting the best practices of a multitude of school districts.  Let’s assemble a Frankenstein of plans.  Borrow the charter school successes of Los Angeles.  The testing efforts of New York City.  Career academies in Miami-Dade.   Or the programs and accountability efforts found in any number of Broad Prize winners.  Take the best from everyone, and do so intentionally and publicly.

Second, and more importantly, credit those who are doing well, those you are “borrowing” from.  Not only does this help avoid issues like those raised in The Washington Post, but it gives DC and Mayor Fenty a little credibility.  The takeover of DCPS is just the latest in a long line of “last ditch fixes” for the public schools in our nation’s capitol.  The revolving door of superintendents, the constant shifting of final-say authority, charter schools, vouchers, magnets, and everything in between has turned DCPS into a glittering target for the latest silver bullets.  DC residents (and those in the surrounding areas) are sick of it.  At the end of the day, the District needs a strong investment in what is proven effective.  And implementing those programs that have worked in other cities — cities with high poverty, struggling schools, and a desire to improve — is the best way to do that.  Using those best practices, and publicly crediting those cities for “lending” those best practices for the improvement of the public schools in our nation’s capitol, is the best way for the Mayor to gain some gravitas on his schools ideas.

At the end of the day, though, words are much easier to use at the start of a reform that in the middle or end of it.  Mayor Fenty can be bold about intentions, but he needs to quickly talk about results.  Let’s hear about the impact charter schools have had in DC, particularly with regard to graduation rates.  Let’s hear about the impact vouchers have had in improving opportunities for DC students.  And let’s hear how the Mayor is going to implement the accountability measures so we know that DC, and U.S. taxpayer, dollars are being wisely spent on reform efforts proven effective in boosting student achievement in schools like Washington’s.

Mayor Fenty, feel free to crib away form those cities who have done well, just be sure to credit them.  But at the end of the day, be sure we are also modeling their assessment and their impact.  It is the end result, and not the process that matters.  We’re watching your actions, and we are hoping you’ll give other cities something to model.

Grade the Parents!

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NAEP, NCLB

There seems to be a little battle brewing in Connecticut over report cards in Manchester School District.  What makes this fight a little different from the norm is that these report cards are intended for parents, not for students.  A member of the school board, Republican Steven Edwards, is calling for report cards for parents, evaluating them on everything from their children’s homework to appropriate dress to breakfast.

The local PTA, along with the school district itself, is opposed to the idea, believing that any issues can just be resolved if parents had more face time with teachers.  When asked what she would think if parent report cards were put in place, the president of the PTA (according to Fox News) said: “I’d be ticked … They’re telling you what to do with your kid.”  (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306003,00.html)

What’s so wrong with that?  Why shouldn’t the schools instruct parents on what they can do to increase the effectiveness of classroom time?  And more importantly, what message are we sending with such strong opposition to looking at the parent’s role in student achievement?

In 2007, we assess virtually everyone.  Students take tests to judge their abilities and competencies.  They are compared to other students in the district, state, nation, and world.  They take multiple assessments each academic year, and we take those numbers seriously.

Likewise, we use that student data and other measures to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers.  In our necessary push for qualified, effective teachers, we regularly judge our teachers.  Fairly or unfairly, our teachers are measured by the performance of their students.  Parents use that report card to help select teachers or schools for their kids, and some school districts use that report card to determine performance bonuses.

And we keep moving up the chain.  We assemble report cards on our schools and school districts, measuring them again other schools and districts.  Each year, we get national report cards on how our states measure up compared to our neighbors, our peers, and such.

Education is all about report cards.  They measure achievement.  They measure progress to date.  They are a constant in the process that we expect, depend on, and use as a tool for improvement.

So it only seems natural that report cards could and should be extended to parents.  We know that parents are just as important an influence, if not more so, on their kids’ academic achievement as teachers.  A parent is a child’s first teacher, and is often one of the last.  And like it or not, children model their behaviors after their parents and do what they say.

In the perfect world, parents and teachers should be working together, and assessed together.  It shouldn’t be an adversarial relationship, nor should it be a once a year meeting for 20 minutes.  Parents should want to be engaged in what is happening in the classroom and should monitor closely.  And the schools should be able to help parents improve the learning time at home, making sure that all students have the support and encouragement they need to maximize their time behind the schoolhouse doors.  Such a dynamic is the quickest, easiest path to opportunity for all students.

Parental influence should lend itself to some sort of accountability.  But the status quo will continue to fight the concept.  And that’s a real shame.  As long as the measurement tool is fair, and not subjective, parents should embrace a report card.  We boast when we coach our child’s sports team.  We proudly display our student’s honor roll bumper sticker.  We should equally embrace a great report card showing we are a key influencer in our kid’s school success.  

We tell our kids grades matter.  We tell them they have to work hard for high marks.  Maybe we need to lead by example, and let them see us working hard for the gold star on the parent’s report card.  Just imagine all those kids who can ride around on their bikes, with bumper stickers declaring, “My Mom is on the Parent’s Honor Roll.”
  

Excuse me, but what?

Eduflack NCLB

There’s no way to soften it.  I was saddened to see Gerald Bracey’s piece in today’s Washington Post.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202004.html  Those who have read Bracey in the past recognize that he has been opposed to most reforms in recent years.  He’s a particularly vocal opponent of NCLB and all that it stands for.  And he has long stood again many of the accountability and assessment reforms that so many districts and states are now embracing.

So I shouldn’t be surprised when I see a Bracey piece that attempts to malign a significant number of organizations and institutions, including NAEP, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in particular.  In Bracey’s attempt to protect the status quo of lagging test scores, lacking student achievement, and absent accountability, he has assumed a stance that may work at a faculty senate mixer, but clearly does not fly in today’s education improvement-focused society.

Why?

First, the ultimate target for his vitriol is NAEP.  NAEP (along with TIMSS and PISA) is one of the few measures we, as a nation, have to truly understand how our students measure up against like-minded students.  School districts and states are able to use this strong assessment tool to ensure that instruction in Alabama stands up to instruction in New Jersey or Wisconsin or Arizona or Oregon.  It provides a common benchmark, a benchmark that helps educators, policymakers, and parents know that their kids are gaining the academic skills needed to succeed, both in college and in career.

If not NAEP, then what?  Bracey is good at tearing down, but he has offered no alternative solutions.  If you are seeking, rhetorically, to take away a valuable tool like NAEP, you better offer a better option.  One of the reasons our schools are in the predicament they are now in is because we have torn down well-intended and effective solutions out of personal politics, without building a better mousetrap.  But we need NAEP, particularly this 21st century global economy.

Second, Bracey almost seeks to say that everyone else is under par, so why should we aspire to improve?  Ask virtually any person on any street in the United States about education.  Our goal is to be the best in the world.  The smartest kids.  The best colleges.  The top scores.  Our goal is not be in the “great majority” or to coming close.  We aspire to be the top.  As a nation, we have the resources, the knowhow, and the motivation to exceed expectations in the classroom.  The rhetoric shouldn’t be about how we measure up to Sweden or Singapore or India, but rather how they measure up to us.  By believing we aren’t that bad, in comparison, Bracey has already given up.  Why reform if we don’t seek to truly improve?

Third, he mistakes our nation’s desire to succeed and to ensure that ALL students are prepared for good jobs as some sort of fear tactic.  There is often a fine line between fear and truth, particularly for those who fear change.  Those seeking to improve our schools are speaking truth.  When Bracey began his career as an educator, high school graduates and even dropouts could move onto careers that would allow them to support a family, buy a home, and lead a happy life.  But times have changed.  We now know that some form of postsecondary education is necessary to get one of those good 21st century jobs.  The truth is that we all bear some responsibility for ensuring our high schools serve as the gateway to those jobs, providing both a relevant and a rigorous curriculum.  And we need tools like NAEP to ensure that those high school students have the academic tools to move to postsecondary education and thrive in whatever career they choose.

Instead of the negative, common-denominator, defeatist rhetoric coming from Mr. Bracey, we need more of the bold words and bold actions necessary to truly improve the system.  We need to know what our presidential candidates will do to strengthen our schools.  We need to know how our states measure up against other states in terms of educational effectiveness.  We need to know how our students measure up against students across the country and around the world.  We need information (and advocates for it) to inspire us and drive us to action.

Education reform is ultimately about improving student achievement.  We don’t do that by calling for the abandonment of key assessment tools, by settling for second best, or by making ascribing false motives to our opponents.  We do it by continuing to talk about the need for reform — for us, for our children, for our community, and for our nation.  And we do it by empowering every interested individual and organization to take specific actions that will make a specific difference.  That’s how you break through the white noise.  That’s how you stop talking around a problem and start enacting the solution. 

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.
 

Opting Out, TIMSS Style

Eduflack AP, early college, higher ed, NCLB, President Bush, Spellings, Students

We need to better prepare our students to compete on the world economy.  Such is the driving mantra behind current pushes to improve our high schools and strengthen the links between secondary and postsecondary education.  Our students need the skills to succeed, they need the math, science, and problem-solving skills to hold their own against other students around the world.  They need the skills to gain good jobs in the United States.  And they need strong math and science skills to ensure such jobs remain here in the United States.  Math and science skills are necessary to keeping our economy strong and our future generations employed.  All strong rhetoric, all believed by Main Street USA, and all pretty damned true.

That’s why Eduflack was a little disappointed to read a piece by Sarah D. Sparks in Education Daily a little more than a week ago, which reported that the United States will not participate in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, for physics and calculus.

Eduflack waited to comment on this development to see how those who truly understand the policy implications reacted.  And the response was as surprising as the announcement — deafening silence.

Why is the U.S. Department opting out of TIMSS?  Two simple reasons.  The first is cost.  The second is lack of students.  What is the United States lacking?  Apparently, we don’t have a few million dollars to conduct the study and we don’t have the 16,000 students needed to comprise an effective sample size.

Yes, such reasoning seems quite questionable, particularly with everything we know about NCLB funding, the demand for greater assessments, and the rapid increase in science and math instruction thanks to programs like STEM, early colleges, and similar high school reforms.

At a time when the international team is looking to go head-to-head with the United States, we choose to sit on the bench.  At a time when we tell our kids that they need to gain math and science skills to succeed in both college and career, we send then to the showers before they even have a chance to pitch the first inning.  And at a time when we should be doing all we can to post impressive stats and demonstrate we are the world leaders, instead we choose to hide behind the stats on the back of our bubblegum cards, those numbers that defined us in years past.

But what, exactly, does this announcement say about us?  Instead of dwelling on what we cannot do or where we see the failings, Eduflack offers up some talking points for Secretary Spellings on this important topic.

* Ensuring that our high school students are truly prepared to compete in the global economy must become a fiscal priority for us.  We are, rightfully so, pouring billions and billions into elementary- and middle-school improvements and testing (including TIMSS for fourth and eighth graders), but the current federal commitment to high schools is but a fraction.  We need to educate and train our students, particularly those in high school, in math and science, and we need to effectively assess those skills.
* We need to applaud those school districts that are taking the responsibility to prepare all students for the future.  Early colleges and dual-enrollment offerings.  AP and IB programs.  STEM education.  All of these are important steps our schools, districts, and states are taking to ready our kids for the challenges and opportunities of the future.
* The United States stands as the true home for innovation.  And we’re willing to make the investment to keep it that way.  Our future is too important not to equip our students with the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to achieve, both in school and in life.

Yes, TIMSS is merely one measure of our effectiveness.  It is a tool, like other assessments, to ensure we are on the right track.  And it is one of the few we have to effectively measure our abilities versus our trading partners and our economic competitors around the globe.  Not participating in the study reads like we are worried about our ability to compete and our ability to excel.  If we aren’t ready for the big leagues, then we need to get back into training and prepare ourselves for true competition.  You can’t win the big game of life if you’re unwilling to step onto the field. 


  

Jumpstarting a Dialogue?

Eduflack DCPS, Fenty, Green Dot, LAUSD, NCLB, PR

We often hear about action for action’s sake, but how often do we act for the benefit of rhetoric?  Apparently, that’s what LA Mayor Villariagosa is saying regarding his attempt to take over LAUSD.  In today’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-lausd19may19,1,3072284.story?coll=la-news-learning&ctrack=3&cset=true) the LA Mayor talks about dropping his bid for takeover, rewriting history by saying his intent was to “provide a framework for dialogue.”

I’ll be the first to say that dialogue is good.  But I am a firm believer that you use rhetoric to advance action.  Pick the right words, the right spokespeople, and understand the right audiences, and you can drive the right action.  Nowhere is that more true than in education reform.  Our goal should not be talk.  Our goal should be to change public behavior (and improve student achievement) through effective communication.

I respect Villariagosa’s attempt to save face in what was a difficult situation.  But when we see the effectiveness of Bloomberg in NYC, or Fenty’s undeterred effort to take over DCPS, do we honestly think either the NYC or DC Mayors would be happy knowing that they had simply provided a “framework for dialogue?”  Of course not.

In the end of the day, Villariagosa forgot an important key to reform communications — build a strong cadre of supporters and advocates.  At times, it appeared he was fighting a one-man fight.  Fighting the school board.  Fighting the union.  Fighting just about anyone who stood for the status quo.  And at the end of the day, he paid the price.  A loss in court, a loss of stakeholder support, and ultimately a loss of public trust.


Lost in the discussion is the fact that LAUSD has some strong reforms they can boast of, particularly the recent successes of Green Dot Schools.  There, they have a reform focused on students and teachers, focused on academic success, and focused on strong communications and ally building in the community.  And its successes have helped it weather public rhetorical opposition from the unions and other sources.


The aborted takeover of LAUSD was a defeat for Villariagosa, no matter how he tries to publicly spin it.  But it teaches an important lesson to many of today’s education reformers.  Reform can’t be personal.  This isn’t about what a particular mayor, a particular superintendent, a particular corporate leader, or a particular researcher want.  As we have seen from LAUSD and from the Reading First and NCLB hearings, personalities can be torn down.  Individual personalities are easy targets.  Find a hole in their rhetoric, their background, or their public persona, and you can turn back their ideas. 

For such reforms to be truly successful, they need to focus on those who are being helped, those who are ultimately benefiting.  Instead of hearing what Villariagosa would do if he won and how he would change the school board and who he would hire, we should have been hearing about that child in Southcentral LA who would finally have that chance to succeed under a streamlined system.  Let’s hear how reform would impact the teachers and the students, not how it would bolster the power of the mayor.

Yes, LA can teach many of our urban districts a great deal.  Hopefully, Mayor Fenty is listening as he prepares to wage a public battle to get his school takeover plan through Congress.  Let’s hear how it will benefit DC schoolchildren and educators, and not how it will enhance the Mayor’s legacybuilding efforts.  In districts like DCPS and LAUSD, simply initiating a dialogue is not enough.  Communication without reform is simply talking to maintain the status quo.  Should that really be a goal … or an achievement to celebrate?