There’s no getting around the subject. This week is NCLB’s sixth birthday. What exactly do we get a law that seems to have both everything and nothing? How do we celebrate a law that has a strong and loyal opposition that is desperately hoping a seventh birthday is not in the future?
For the father of NCLB, President George W. Bush, it was all about deep dish pizza and a visit to the Windy City. For the law’s author, Senator Ted Kennedy, it was about promises of NCLB offspring, a new law with better funding that can be offered as part of reauthorization. And for its godmother, Ed Secretary Margaret Spellings, it was the promise of action without reauthorization (a “we don’t need no stinkin’ badges moment, if you will).
What has been most interesting about this year’s “celebration” has been the unified critical view of NCLB. The message from the loyal opposition has clear. NCLB is bad because of tough assessments of students and of schools.
Even if we are to eulogize NCLB tomorrow, do we really believe that measurement and evaluation is what is wrong with our K-12 system? Shouldn’t we have the strongest possible understanding of how our students are achieving? Shouldn’t we know what they know, building on their strengths and attending to their weaknesses?
Likewise, shouldn’t we know how our schools are doing? As taxpayers, we want to know that our property tax dollars are being well-spent. As parents, we want to know that our school is as good (if not better) than others in the area. And as a community, we want assurances that our school system is education our students and preparing them for a high-paying, high-skills job once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time.
Regardless of political party, educational philosophy, or general approach to life, we all have to agree that information is power. Data on student, teacher, and school performance provide us key information. Sure, we don’t have to use that information in a punitive manner. School data can be used to redirect funding or teacher resources, rather than just to identify failing schools. It can be used to identify what works, and not just as fodder to attack what doesn’t. It can be used as a learning tool and as an instructional foundation.
If we’ve learned anything over these past six years, it’s that we need more information and more data about our schools, not less. We need to know what works and what doesn’t. We need to know who’s achieving and who’s not. And most importantly, we need to know how to measure both. If data is king, we need to make sure our schools are true royalty, and not merely court jesters feeling around in a darkened corner.
NCLB
Those Good Ole 2008 Resolutions
Today is the start of a new year. That means it is time for resolutions. Typically, we promise to lose weight, spend more time with our families, and earn more money (at least those seem to be at the top of Eduflack’s list each year). But a new year, particularly an election year, provides an interesting opportunity to determine what we resolve to do to improve K-12 education in the United States.
So here’s my list for what the education reform community should resolve to do in 2008:
* Advocate for reforms that are focused on outcomes, and not just the inputs. Results matter.
* Ensure that all key stakeholders — educators, policymakers, business community, community leaders, and students — all have a seat, and a voice, at the reform table
* Avoid the silver bullets and magical elixirs that are being peddled every day. Real improvement takes hard work, real commitment, and a long-term view
* Break down the silos, instead of building more walls. We all share the same goal — improving student learning and student achievement. We need all the help we can get. We shouldn’t be excluding individuals, organizations, or audiences from the get-go.
* At the same time, we can’t stand for those who put up obstacles — rhetorically, politically, policy-wise, or practically. We can’t win over 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. That means we need to push through the obstacles, not dwell on them.
* We need to recognize and appreciate the education continuum. PreK is going to be a big buzz word in State of the State addresses this month. But that doesn’t mean that high schools or elementary reading and math no longer merit our attention or funding. K-12 reform means reform across all 13 years of school.
* Put real reforms ahead of NCLB. If there truly is interest in education issues and school improvement, we shouldn’t let a label like NCLB keep us from moving forward.
And as with other resolutions, we need to figure out a way to measure our effectiveness. Yes, there are both quantitative and qualitative ways to measure educational effectiveness. And both play a valuable role in measuring efficacy. Regardless of the tool, we need to make sure our interventions work. And we need to see them work in schools like ours, in classrooms like ours, with students like ours.
And what about Eduflack? I have a few resolutions for this blog as well:
* To provide a regular stream of commentary, offering at least three posts a week (while personally hoping for one a day)
* To be more analytical, and a little less preachy (unless y’all want preachy, the soapbox is always ready)
* To throw a greater spotlight on those issues that aren’t getting the attention they deserve
* To build up the positive, instead of focusing on the negatives
* To accept that NCLB 2.5 (or are we at 3.0) should not be focal point for 2008. If it passes, it passes. If not, we move on. Improvement, not NCLB reauthorization, is the goal.
* To amplify the call for national standards, even if it is as unpopular as a skunk at a garden party these days. You have to stand up for what you believe.
All I ask is that you keep reading, keep me honest, and call me out when needed. Here’s to 2008!
To Veto is to Improve
I’d like to think that everything I’ve learned about the legislative process, I learned from Saturday morning cartoons (and those five years working on Capitol Hill, I guess). Just about everyone from my generation should know how a bill becomes a law, even if it is just from remembering Schoolhouse Rock. But where is our song about the meaning of vetoing one’s signature domestic policy bill?
For those who missed it, President Bush, at his year-end briefing yesterday, tossed the biggest rhetorical softball possible to his critics and to those on the NCLB fence. The President states that if he gets an NCLB reauthorization that weakens the law, he would veto it.
We may talk about lines in the sand, but Bush has now drawn a rhetorical Grand Canyon. As other policymakers are debating multiple measures and increased funding and escape clauses, the President stands clear and emphatic in his position. It’s improvement, or it is nothing at all.
This is an extremely bold stance from a lame duck president with low national approval rankings and little record on education these past couple of years. And it is just the sort of bold statement the President needed to make if he is to save the one potential legacy piece of his domestic agenda.
With such a strong statement (albeit in a relatively throw-away media session), 2008 could be an interesting one, if we can get NCLB to the front of the policy agenda. Why?
* Senator Kennedy continues to explore reforms to NCLB, and it is clear the law will change. The big question is whether the law is strengthened, the law is watered down, or the law is tabled until a new president can put his imprint on the nation’s K-12 law.
* Advocates of the law have regained their stride. For much of the year, NCLB critics have dominated the debate. But we are starting to see cracks. Earlier this week, Governors Thompson and Barnes of Aspen’s NCLB Commission had their oped on the law printed in The Washington Times. Ed in 08 continues to push on the hows and whys presidential candidates should stand up to strengthen our nation’s commitment to K-12.
* Recent NAEP and PISA scores have many talking about how we continue to improve the quality and measurement of education. There is a growing hunger for proven, long-term improvement.
For years, Eduflack has opined on how NCLB could serve as President Bush’s true domestic policy legacy. The changes he has made in how we teach, how we use research, what we expect of our teachers, and how we measure our schools will be with us for a long time. The federal dollars spent on K-12 have never been higher. And he has given federal education issues a singular voice under the banner of 2008. Like it or not, the relationship between the federal government to K-12 public education is vastly different today compared to 2001. And that relationship shows a vision from which Bush and his education team have never wavered, no matter the criticism, attack, or obstacle.
But if the President wants that legacy, if he wants an NCLB reauthorization he can sign, he needs to be both bold and proactive moving forward. Now is the time for Bush (and Spellings) to step forward and clearly articulate those improvements they would agree to and those improvements that result in a better, stronger NCLB.
Like what?
* Provide schools and districts more flexibility to meet AYP, assuming their actions follow the spirit of the law
* Demand full funding for Reading First, while offering stringent oversight protections to ensure the funds are being used only on “gold standard” interventions with unquestioned research
* Take states to task for weakening their state standards just so they can claim proficiency on state tests
* Amend the HQT provisions to include provisions for effective teaching
* Ensure that real educators, policymakers, and the business community are involved in implementing NCLB 2.0 and evaluating its effectiveness
* Remind us of the primary audience for NCLB. Yes, teachers and counselors and researchers are important. But our primary focus is the student — how do we use the law to ensure all students are provided a high-quality education that prepares them for the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the 21st century.
I’m just an eduflack. I’m sure there are a number of other ways we can strengthen the law, doing so in a way that will gain the President’s signature and the education community’s endorsement. Mr. President, consider it my Christmas present to you. No need for a thank you card, and no reason to consider returning it.
A “Broader Yardstick”
Yesterday’s Washington Post continued the public debate on how we measure the efficacy of our public schools. Under a headline of “Calls Grow for a Broader Yardstick for Schools,” the Post’s Maria Glod fan the flames of high-stakes testing and NCLB mandates. But if we peel back the clamoring and positioning, what is the Post really poking at? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/15/AR2007121501747.html
Eduflack will try to look past the American Society of Civil Engineers’ calls for national science testing. Last I saw, science was one of the three subjects NCLB is slated to test, with those fourth through eighth grade exams coming online shortly. There’s one demand that has already been met.
So let’s look at the broader picture. NEA’s Reg Weaver is right when he says student success should be more than just one test score. And CCSSO’s Michael Casserly is dead-on when he states that different audiences have different answers to the question of how to best measure our K-12 schools. But instead of looking at “multiple measures” and examining how one state’s proficiency measures stand up to another’s, there has to be a simple way. Oh, wait, there is — national standards.
If we look at the hand-ringing in the Post piece and in public and private discussions these past few years about accountability and the measurement of student, teacher, and school achievement, there is rarely discussion of national standards. It’s as if it is the third rail of education reform (or maybe the 3 1/3 rail, after teacher accountability). We’re afraid to talk about national standards, not knowing what might be behind the curtain if we allow that show to truly take the stage.
But isn’t national standards the rhetorical solution to all of these criticisms?
* It offers a bold solution that demonstrates that we, as a nation, are committed to strengthening our schools and ensuring our students have the skills they need to succeed in the workplace and the community
* It provides a strong fix to the notion that some states may be lowering their standards to appear proficient
* It states that every child, regardless of their home town or economic standing, has the right to a strong, proven effective public education
* It brings equality to our expectations and measurement of classroom teachers, whether they be in urban, suburban or rural settings
* It may just be the only “fair” approach to measuring our schools – with one common yardstick
Earlier this year, Gov. Roy Romer — now heading Strong American Schools — suggested we bring together many of the nation’s top governors and let them hatch the plan for adopting national education standards. Eduflack said it then, and he’ll say it again, it is a visionary approach that may be just what the ed reform community is in search of. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/05/the-next-great-ed-reform-idea.aspx
Most still bristle at the notion of national education standards. We reflect on the belief that education is a local issue, left to town councils and local selectmen. While that may have been true a century or so ago, results from NAEP and PISA tell us a very different story. If we are to maintain a thriving economy, if we are to be home to the world’s top industry and innovative thinking, we need to get serious about how we measure our successes. It just doesn’t get more serious that national standards.
The Blame Game, Iowa and Hollywood Style
We may not be all that adept at determining solutions for improving our nation’s public schools, but we certainly know how to assign blame. Case in point this week, conservatives in the GOP presidential debates and liberals on the TV show “Boston Legal.”
If you missed it, earlier this week the Republican candidates for president had yet another debate. At this one, multiple presidential hopefuls attacked the NEA as the primary obstacle to education reform. Tagging the teachers unions as the defenders of a broken school system, these Republicans (yes, I’m talking about you Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson) seem to think that if the NEA would just step back and allow school choice, all would be made right in our K-12 schools.
On the flip side, Boston Legal ran a plotline of a high-achieving high school student stealing her school’s standardized tests to spotlight the inadequacies of high-stakes testing. Lines like standardized tests are producing a school of “idiots” and this is all the fault of the “No Child Left Behind nazis” certainly makes for good television. Throw in a sobbing staffer from National Geographic bemoaning student mapping abilities, a principal believing NCLB is denying him the ability to teach what students need, and a student believing she is being denied a quality education at a predominantly white high school in Boston, and we see how NCLB can become must-see prime time TV viewing.
What does it all mean? We still aren’t taking education seriously as a topic for discussion, debate, and thought. Instead of the GOP discussing the merits of school choice and the impact it has had on disadvantaged youth or those from low-performing schools, we seek to tar the NEA. Then we use NCLB as a punchline, sandwiched between suing the National Guard for failing to stop a flood and a former teen madame. We’ve resorted to using education reform as an applause line or a punchline, take your pick. (Don’t believe me, look at a recent Family Guy cartoon, that also focused on NCLB and AYP.)
We’re continuing to blame others for our educational problems, rather than offer solutions where we take responsibility. As Mitt Romney is attacking the NEA, can’t he also be blamed for the fictitious school failures in Boston Legal. After all, these were his schools 11 months ago. Where are the Romney and Thompson’s K-12 education plans? What will they do to fix the problems? How are they going to expand school choice? How will they get effective teachers in the classroom, and ineffective teachers out? And what are they going to do to get Candice Bergen’s sure to be Wellesley College-bound grand-daughter to stop destroying the tests and ensure that her high school is accurately measured? (Interestingly, Romney was actually mentioned on the program, while Massachusetts’ current education governor, Deval Patrick, was not.)
The only positive out of all this, I suppose, is that NCLB is known well enough as a brand that it can stand as a story line on a top prime-time television program, without needing explanation or set-up. As silly as blaming NCLB for our high school woes may be, those TV producers assume that their viewers know NCLB, know the issues around AYP and high-stakes testing, and will buy into the concerns over teaching to the test and preparing students for the challenges of the future. Maybe the NCLB brand name is better recognized than Eduflack has assumed.
As we close out the pop reference portion of today’s program, it all comes back to our of Eduflack’s favorite movies of recent years, Thank You For Smoking. In the movie, the lead character — a tobacco industry lobbyist — explains the lobbying game to his son. It isn’t about proving you are right, he opines, it is about proving your opponent is wrong. If your opponent is wrong, the electorate has not choice but to assume you must then be right.
Clearly, this is what we are seeing these days in education reform. Few are stepping up to show us how they are right and what they will do to approve it. Instead, we’re giftwrapping blame and defending bad behavior by attacking.
I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to change the channel. I’ll read the blogs and the websites and the newspapers for my news and education reform information. I want mindless bubblegum entertainment on my TV programs. Let’s leave the social commentary to the Sunday morning talk shows and the news channels I never seem to reach, up past ESPN and Noggin on my cable box.
Forget the Pointy Heads, Bring it to Main Street
As many continue to push (with limited impact) to make education a primary discussion topic for the 2008 presidential races, some education discussion is starting to seep through. Maybe we’re getting sick of talking about waterboarding and obstructionists in Congress and four-year old votes. But little by little, we’re starting to get a few interesting nuggets. And none more interesting that Hillary Clinton and the writeups she received in The Washington Post these past two days.
In this morning’s editions, the Post has Hillary running new campaign commercials calling for the end of No Child Left Behind. This may be news to Senator Kennedy and his work on NCLB 2.5, but Hillary is now opposed to the law. Perhaps the rhetoric is the price one pays to win the endorsement of the NEA. Or perhaps she has heard the high-stakes testing chorus sing one too many verses on the perils of NCLB. Regardless, Hillary now joins Bill Richardson on the “all our educational ills are due to NCLB” bandwagon.
The more interesting piece, though, was included as part of a massive profile of Hillary appearing in the Sunday Post. Dana Milbank has a great piece, entitled Teaching the Teachers, that provides a glimpse into how Hillary truly thinks about education. The article can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801442.html.
What it demonstrates is that, in Hillary-land, education is a discussion between policymakers and practitioners only. It is a talk for the government and for teachers. And those other stakeholders we know are necessary — the parents, the students, the business community — and all those affected by the end result of our K-12 system, are really just an after-thought, unimportant to the discussion.
Milbank sums up Hillary’s thinking best — “Let’s hear it for facility preparedness and adequacy! Put your hands together for kinesthetic learning and the de-homogenization of the classroom! Save the in-age cohort!”
Hillary’s talking inside baseball, and she only seems to want to speak to those who are warming up on that field. Instead of seeing education as a great equalizer, as an issue that touches virtually every citizen, and as a continuous issue with real impact on the economy and the healthcare system and criminal justice and all points in between, she sees it as a theoretical discussion for the practitioners. And that’s a real shame.
Yes, these issues may indeed be important when discussing education reform with teachers and administrators. Sure, you need to show teachers you know the issues and you are one of the smartest people in the room when it comes to their concerns and their priorities. But you can’t lose sight of the larger constituency here.
We all want to hear how you are going to improve our schools, improve the quality of teaching, and boost student achievement. But instead of presenting a doctoral dissertation on the motivational misgivings of the North American third grade classroom, how about offering some practical solutions on how we, as a community, can do better? When you were First Lady, it took a village. When it comes to improving our public schools, it still takes a village. Relate it to me. Talk to me. Show me what I can do to improve the quality of our schools and the instruction they offer.
Clearly, Hillary must have demonstrated this vision when she won the AFT endorsement earlier this year. Again, now is the time to show it to us. If you want to kill NCLB, that’s great. But tell us what you will do instead. We’ve had enough of the politics and communications of destruction. The time has come for the rhetoric of solutions. And if they are real solutions that can work in a school and a class like mine, all the better.
In this morning’s editions, the Post has Hillary running new campaign commercials calling for the end of No Child Left Behind. This may be news to Senator Kennedy and his work on NCLB 2.5, but Hillary is now opposed to the law. Perhaps the rhetoric is the price one pays to win the endorsement of the NEA. Or perhaps she has heard the high-stakes testing chorus sing one too many verses on the perils of NCLB. Regardless, Hillary now joins Bill Richardson on the “all our educational ills are due to NCLB” bandwagon.
The more interesting piece, though, was included as part of a massive profile of Hillary appearing in the Sunday Post. Dana Milbank has a great piece, entitled Teaching the Teachers, that provides a glimpse into how Hillary truly thinks about education. The article can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801442.html.
What it demonstrates is that, in Hillary-land, education is a discussion between policymakers and practitioners only. It is a talk for the government and for teachers. And those other stakeholders we know are necessary — the parents, the students, the business community — and all those affected by the end result of our K-12 system, are really just an after-thought, unimportant to the discussion.
Milbank sums up Hillary’s thinking best — “Let’s hear it for facility preparedness and adequacy! Put your hands together for kinesthetic learning and the de-homogenization of the classroom! Save the in-age cohort!”
Hillary’s talking inside baseball, and she only seems to want to speak to those who are warming up on that field. Instead of seeing education as a great equalizer, as an issue that touches virtually every citizen, and as a continuous issue with real impact on the economy and the healthcare system and criminal justice and all points in between, she sees it as a theoretical discussion for the practitioners. And that’s a real shame.
Yes, these issues may indeed be important when discussing education reform with teachers and administrators. Sure, you need to show teachers you know the issues and you are one of the smartest people in the room when it comes to their concerns and their priorities. But you can’t lose sight of the larger constituency here.
We all want to hear how you are going to improve our schools, improve the quality of teaching, and boost student achievement. But instead of presenting a doctoral dissertation on the motivational misgivings of the North American third grade classroom, how about offering some practical solutions on how we, as a community, can do better? When you were First Lady, it took a village. When it comes to improving our public schools, it still takes a village. Relate it to me. Talk to me. Show me what I can do to improve the quality of our schools and the instruction they offer.
Clearly, Hillary must have demonstrated this vision when she won the AFT endorsement earlier this year. Again, now is the time to show it to us. If you want to kill NCLB, that’s great. But tell us what you will do instead. We’ve had enough of the politics and communications of destruction. The time has come for the rhetoric of solutions. And if they are real solutions that can work in a school and a class like mine, all the better.
Pundits Vs. Analysts on Ed
Is it or isn’t it? Yesterday, the Ed in 08 folks held a forum up in New Hampshire, offering an impressive list of “pundits” discussing how education was becoming a key issue for the upcoming presidential elections. Today, This Week in Education has a link to a CNS News story, where their “analysts” say education will not be a significant issue in 2008. (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11560325/) Who’s right? And does it matter?
At the end of the day, they are probably both right. Education may be a top five issue when it comes to voter concerns, but it simply is not an issue that people vote on, particularly for presidential elections. We’ll vote on the war. On healthcare. On the general economy. Even for a balanced budget. But education is viewed as a local issue. The president may carry a rhetorical stick, but the vast majority of reforms, improvements and dollars are coming from state and local sources. Governors and mayors and city councils get elected on education issues. Not presidents. As a result, education won’t be a significant issue in 2008.
But it can become a key issue in differentiating some of the presidential candidates (and that’s likely Ed in 08’s hope). To date, Obama has done the most with the issue, calling for merit pay before the NEA and offering a fairly comprehensive education agenda earlier this month. Others have dabbled in issues like preK or college loans. Most have come out strongly against NCLB (even in GOP circles), particularly when it comes to testing. That leaves a great deal of room to play in, position, and orate.
For months now, folks have been waiting for Ed in 08 to seize the podium as it intended this past spring, and really make the case for national leadership in education reform. The organization has set a goal of advocating for three key issues with presidential candidates — 1) agreement on American education standards; 2) effective teachers in every classroom; and 3) more time and support for student learning. Hardly the call to action that makes hearts skip a beat and convinces the citizenry to slay dragons with a butter knife.
Democrats want to advocate for education policy that aligns with the wishes and dreams of the NEA and AFT. Republicans want to return education issues to the localities. That leaves a wide lane for bold, strong action and rhetoric.
What would Eduflack be screaming on the stump?
1) A high school diploma is a non-negotiable that every student needs to obtain a meaningful job.
2) In the 21st century, every student needs some form of postsecondary education, be it community college, CTE training, or four-year institution. A well-paying career requires postsec ed.
3) K-12 is no longer just an education issue. It is an economic development issue. If we want economic development, if we want good jobs, if we want job growth in our community, we need a strong K-12 system (and a strong PK-16 system would be even better).
4) Teaching is a hard job. We need to make sure every classroom has a proven effective teacher, and that teacher has the support he or she needs to do the job (see Aspen’s Commission on NCLB for the blueprint on this one)
5) We only teach what works. Proven effective rules the day. Curriculum, teachers, and students must all show their worth and must demonstrate success. The era of silver-bullet education and quick fixes is over. It takes real work and proven effective instruction to do the job.
6) Education reform is a shared responsibility. From the fed to the locality. From teachers to parents. From the CBOs to the business community. We all have a role, and an obligation, in improving our public schools.
7) We need to publicize the successes. We spend too much time talking about what’s going wrong in our schools. We need to provide the megaphone to what is working, and use it a teaching and modeling tool. We all benefit when we see what schools like ours and kids like our are doing to succeed. And there’s a lot of good happening in our schools.
Yes, such messages are bound to offend some. But isn’t that what bold communication is all about? If we want to protect the status quo, we can speak in vague generalities with words that have muddled meaning and virtually no impact. Improvement is reform. Reform is change. Change is rocking the boat.
For the past few decades, public education has been home to the status quoers. Look where it has gotten us. If we expect to get real traction on issues like national education standards, performance measures for teachers, expansion of charter schools and school choice, and a number of other reforms and ideas that are thrown about, we need an environment that allows for change. That’s the only way we get education into the top tier of issues for federal elections.
Without doubt, the good people at Ed in 08 have the resources, the experience, and the know how to do this. The snowmen have had their chance to ask the tough questions. Now’s the time to put the candidate’s feet to the fire on what exactly they would do to boost student achievement and educational quality in our public schools. Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the system; we know it better than you. Tell us how your administration will fix it. Please.
If Ed in 08 can get us those answers, then we really have something to talk about.
At the end of the day, they are probably both right. Education may be a top five issue when it comes to voter concerns, but it simply is not an issue that people vote on, particularly for presidential elections. We’ll vote on the war. On healthcare. On the general economy. Even for a balanced budget. But education is viewed as a local issue. The president may carry a rhetorical stick, but the vast majority of reforms, improvements and dollars are coming from state and local sources. Governors and mayors and city councils get elected on education issues. Not presidents. As a result, education won’t be a significant issue in 2008.
But it can become a key issue in differentiating some of the presidential candidates (and that’s likely Ed in 08’s hope). To date, Obama has done the most with the issue, calling for merit pay before the NEA and offering a fairly comprehensive education agenda earlier this month. Others have dabbled in issues like preK or college loans. Most have come out strongly against NCLB (even in GOP circles), particularly when it comes to testing. That leaves a great deal of room to play in, position, and orate.
For months now, folks have been waiting for Ed in 08 to seize the podium as it intended this past spring, and really make the case for national leadership in education reform. The organization has set a goal of advocating for three key issues with presidential candidates — 1) agreement on American education standards; 2) effective teachers in every classroom; and 3) more time and support for student learning. Hardly the call to action that makes hearts skip a beat and convinces the citizenry to slay dragons with a butter knife.
Democrats want to advocate for education policy that aligns with the wishes and dreams of the NEA and AFT. Republicans want to return education issues to the localities. That leaves a wide lane for bold, strong action and rhetoric.
What would Eduflack be screaming on the stump?
1) A high school diploma is a non-negotiable that every student needs to obtain a meaningful job.
2) In the 21st century, every student needs some form of postsecondary education, be it community college, CTE training, or four-year institution. A well-paying career requires postsec ed.
3) K-12 is no longer just an education issue. It is an economic development issue. If we want economic development, if we want good jobs, if we want job growth in our community, we need a strong K-12 system (and a strong PK-16 system would be even better).
4) Teaching is a hard job. We need to make sure every classroom has a proven effective teacher, and that teacher has the support he or she needs to do the job (see Aspen’s Commission on NCLB for the blueprint on this one)
5) We only teach what works. Proven effective rules the day. Curriculum, teachers, and students must all show their worth and must demonstrate success. The era of silver-bullet education and quick fixes is over. It takes real work and proven effective instruction to do the job.
6) Education reform is a shared responsibility. From the fed to the locality. From teachers to parents. From the CBOs to the business community. We all have a role, and an obligation, in improving our public schools.
7) We need to publicize the successes. We spend too much time talking about what’s going wrong in our schools. We need to provide the megaphone to what is working, and use it a teaching and modeling tool. We all benefit when we see what schools like ours and kids like our are doing to succeed. And there’s a lot of good happening in our schools.
Yes, such messages are bound to offend some. But isn’t that what bold communication is all about? If we want to protect the status quo, we can speak in vague generalities with words that have muddled meaning and virtually no impact. Improvement is reform. Reform is change. Change is rocking the boat.
For the past few decades, public education has been home to the status quoers. Look where it has gotten us. If we expect to get real traction on issues like national education standards, performance measures for teachers, expansion of charter schools and school choice, and a number of other reforms and ideas that are thrown about, we need an environment that allows for change. That’s the only way we get education into the top tier of issues for federal elections.
Without doubt, the good people at Ed in 08 have the resources, the experience, and the know how to do this. The snowmen have had their chance to ask the tough questions. Now’s the time to put the candidate’s feet to the fire on what exactly they would do to boost student achievement and educational quality in our public schools. Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the system; we know it better than you. Tell us how your administration will fix it. Please.
If Ed in 08 can get us those answers, then we really have something to talk about.
The After-Effects of After-School
Does learning only happen during school hours, behind school house doors? For years, the education community has debated the impact of after-school programs on student achievement. Today, Education Week’s Debra Viadero has a story on a new research study showing dramatic achievement gains for those students who regularly attend and participate in “top-notch” after-school programs.
The story can be found at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/28/13afterschool.h27.html
The findings seem common sense to Eduflack. Take at-risk students. Put them in a high-quality after-school program that reinforces the curriculum and learning strategies they are getting in the classroom. Ensure that they come to all of their after-school sessions. Observe the benefits. Repeat. More instruction, particularly if it is proven to work, is bound to help even the most at-risk student. That’s why we advocate for more instructional time or for parents to reinforce classroom lessons at home.
As is now par for the course in education reform, the critics are out, attacking the methodology. The driver for this — a 2005 study that showed no measurable effects for after-school programs. Questioning how experimental groups and control groups were chosen and the legitimacy of comparing students from group A to group B is destined to quickly turn this report, known as the Promising Afterschool Programs Study, into yet another inning of inside baseball, where researchers will continue to throw brush-back pitches as those students in need aren’t even allowed a ticket in.
Education reform is about improvement. We advocate for what works, and we push to adopt what is proven effective in schools and with kids like ours. As we look at the pool of at-risk students, can anyone — with a straight face — honestly say that the current classroom instruction is enough to turn those kids around, have them catch up to their cohort, and achieve on assessments? Of course not. They’ll always be a step behind without additional help beyond school hours.
When an affluent student struggles in the classroom, his parent is quick to hire an after-hours tutor to turn things around. Some after-school sessions and special attention (and much money) later, the student gets the concept and is able to keep up in trig or biology or physics.
So why would it be any different for an at-risk student in a low-income community? Research-based after-school programs are designed to provide students that same sort of instruction and attention, giving them a boost in the classroom the next day. If such programs are proven effective (and the Promising Afterschool Programs Study is posting eye-popping positive results) then shouldn’t we encourage their continued use?
Research can often be a double-edged sword in education. Yes, we can and should use it to measure the effectiveness of a school, a class, or a student. We should use it to ensure that instructional programs are effective and are proven to work. We use it to validate our decisions, when faced with vocal resistance. It is a powerful communications tool.
But research can also be used to tear down. Yes, the 2005 study found after-school programs to have no effect on student achievement. But that doesn’t mean this new study is wrong. If anything, it tells us we need to take a closer look at the type of after-school program we’re looking to. Like everything else, there are good and bad programs. If continued research of after-school programs gets us closer to replicating the good and eradicating the bad, it’s a win for researchers, a win for the schools, and a huge win for the students.
The story can be found at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/28/13afterschool.h27.html
The findings seem common sense to Eduflack. Take at-risk students. Put them in a high-quality after-school program that reinforces the curriculum and learning strategies they are getting in the classroom. Ensure that they come to all of their after-school sessions. Observe the benefits. Repeat. More instruction, particularly if it is proven to work, is bound to help even the most at-risk student. That’s why we advocate for more instructional time or for parents to reinforce classroom lessons at home.
As is now par for the course in education reform, the critics are out, attacking the methodology. The driver for this — a 2005 study that showed no measurable effects for after-school programs. Questioning how experimental groups and control groups were chosen and the legitimacy of comparing students from group A to group B is destined to quickly turn this report, known as the Promising Afterschool Programs Study, into yet another inning of inside baseball, where researchers will continue to throw brush-back pitches as those students in need aren’t even allowed a ticket in.
Education reform is about improvement. We advocate for what works, and we push to adopt what is proven effective in schools and with kids like ours. As we look at the pool of at-risk students, can anyone — with a straight face — honestly say that the current classroom instruction is enough to turn those kids around, have them catch up to their cohort, and achieve on assessments? Of course not. They’ll always be a step behind without additional help beyond school hours.
When an affluent student struggles in the classroom, his parent is quick to hire an after-hours tutor to turn things around. Some after-school sessions and special attention (and much money) later, the student gets the concept and is able to keep up in trig or biology or physics.
So why would it be any different for an at-risk student in a low-income community? Research-based after-school programs are designed to provide students that same sort of instruction and attention, giving them a boost in the classroom the next day. If such programs are proven effective (and the Promising Afterschool Programs Study is posting eye-popping positive results) then shouldn’t we encourage their continued use?
Research can often be a double-edged sword in education. Yes, we can and should use it to measure the effectiveness of a school, a class, or a student. We should use it to ensure that instructional programs are effective and are proven to work. We use it to validate our decisions, when faced with vocal resistance. It is a powerful communications tool.
But research can also be used to tear down. Yes, the 2005 study found after-school programs to have no effect on student achievement. But that doesn’t mean this new study is wrong. If anything, it tells us we need to take a closer look at the type of after-school program we’re looking to. Like everything else, there are good and bad programs. If continued research of after-school programs gets us closer to replicating the good and eradicating the bad, it’s a win for researchers, a win for the schools, and a huge win for the students.
Marketing NCLB
On several occasions, Eduflack has advocated for a national “marketing” effort for NCLB, seeing public support and demand for the law as one of the only means to get it reauthorized with real improvements, but without significant overhaul. Earlier this week, a reader asked, “Wonder what I would write for a NCLB marketing campaign. Isn’t Spellings a walking sound bite?”
Anyone who has been reading the ed blogs — particularly Alexander Russo’s — knows there’s been a lot of talk about the teacher unions’ ability to scuttle any talk of NCLB reauthorization this year. AFT and NEA deserve a lot of credit for their execution of a good communications strategy. They were able to control the NCLB story, keeping it an inside baseball discussion and limiting to a small collection of policy wonks, education organizations, researchers, and, at times, ed bloggers. Thus it was easy for the House and Senate decisionmakers to table the issue for a new year. The unions planned and executed an effort that worked. The set a goal, the set the terms of debate, and they dominated the discussion. That’ll get you victory on just about any stage.
Which gets us back to the question about a marketing campaign. Are communications victories won by sound bite, or won by solid strategy? If we go with the former, Margaret Spellings should indeed be taking a victory lap on NCLB reauthorization. Last year, she deemed the law, like Ivory soap, 99.99% effective. And this year, she’s had many a good turn of phrase with the education media, the general media, Jon Stewart, and countless others. Yes, she knows her message, nows how to stick to it, and knows how to get folks to listen to it.
The NCLBers are fine when it comes to message. The law works. It’s effective. We have data to prove it. Education improvement shouldn’t be flavor of the month. Et cetera, et cetera. But message is one of the last pieces to the effective strategy. And in many ways, the U.S. Department of Education has skipped over many of the needed steps, in the hopes of advancing directly to Boardwalk and Park Place.
What’s missing? Eduflack suggests a few key components to a solid communications strategy:
* Goals — Media coverage is not a goal for a communications plan. Goals are things like effective implementation, reauthorization, teacher recruitment, etc. Any campaign needs clear and achievable goals. And we must recognize we can’t be everything to everybody. If we have multiple goals, we may need multiple strategies to get there.
* Analysis and Application of Research — No, I’m not talking the student achievement data. Year after year, we get public opinion surveys from PDK, NEA, and others charting NCLB satisfaction. That data should be analyzed, broken down, and used as a foundation for communications planning. It tells you what messages work, and what don’t. And it provides third-party validation for communications activities.
* Audience Identification and Segmentation — Who are we talking to? For years, NCLB was a dialogue between ED and educational researchers. It should be a discussion on Main Street USA, not in the ivory towers. Who is important to getting the law effectively implemented? Who is important to getting it reauthorized? It’s parents, teachers, business leaders, and community leaders across the country. It may be easier dealing with the AFT then rank-and-file teachers, but those individual teachers are the ones who carry the message into the classroom.
* Message Development — Some like to call these sound bites, but sound bites are canned sentences. Messages are the themes that all should be communicating. Whether it be the SecEd or the Secretary of Labor talking about jobs, the message needs to be on the need for NCLB, the progress to date, and the impact it will have on education and economy for decades to come.
* Relationship Development — Be it the media, influencers, organizational leaders, or the like, relationships are key. The days when ED could exclude organizations from the debate are over. They need all the help they can get on NCLB, and need to build the relationships that result in that help.
Then we get into the PR 101. Media relations. Public events. Conferences. New media/Internet. Speaking opportunities. Etc. These are the tactical pieces that ED tends to do well. The key is to bring them together under one umbrella, so all activities are working toward a singular, clear goal. If the tactic doesn’t help us reach the goal, then it isn’t necessarily worth doing. Time is precious. We use it on those activities that make a difference.
This is just the early outline of what an NCLB marketing plan needs to focus on. Sound bites are great, but they are a tactic, not a strategy. Just like the law itself, an NCLB communications plan needs goals. It needs methods of measurement. It needs feedback loops. It needs highly qualified professionals. It needs accountability.
Get a half-dozen communications professionals (with education policy knowledge) in a room for a day. Set some programmatic goals. Embrace the Yankelovich model for changing public behavior. And you could have a real blueprint for selling NCLB across the nation, and moving the debate from inside the ed blob to onto Main Street USA.
NCLB is all about doing what works. This sort of approach works. And it may be the only way we see NCLB reauthorization before the end of 2009.
Anyone who has been reading the ed blogs — particularly Alexander Russo’s — knows there’s been a lot of talk about the teacher unions’ ability to scuttle any talk of NCLB reauthorization this year. AFT and NEA deserve a lot of credit for their execution of a good communications strategy. They were able to control the NCLB story, keeping it an inside baseball discussion and limiting to a small collection of policy wonks, education organizations, researchers, and, at times, ed bloggers. Thus it was easy for the House and Senate decisionmakers to table the issue for a new year. The unions planned and executed an effort that worked. The set a goal, the set the terms of debate, and they dominated the discussion. That’ll get you victory on just about any stage.
Which gets us back to the question about a marketing campaign. Are communications victories won by sound bite, or won by solid strategy? If we go with the former, Margaret Spellings should indeed be taking a victory lap on NCLB reauthorization. Last year, she deemed the law, like Ivory soap, 99.99% effective. And this year, she’s had many a good turn of phrase with the education media, the general media, Jon Stewart, and countless others. Yes, she knows her message, nows how to stick to it, and knows how to get folks to listen to it.
The NCLBers are fine when it comes to message. The law works. It’s effective. We have data to prove it. Education improvement shouldn’t be flavor of the month. Et cetera, et cetera. But message is one of the last pieces to the effective strategy. And in many ways, the U.S. Department of Education has skipped over many of the needed steps, in the hopes of advancing directly to Boardwalk and Park Place.
What’s missing? Eduflack suggests a few key components to a solid communications strategy:
* Goals — Media coverage is not a goal for a communications plan. Goals are things like effective implementation, reauthorization, teacher recruitment, etc. Any campaign needs clear and achievable goals. And we must recognize we can’t be everything to everybody. If we have multiple goals, we may need multiple strategies to get there.
* Analysis and Application of Research — No, I’m not talking the student achievement data. Year after year, we get public opinion surveys from PDK, NEA, and others charting NCLB satisfaction. That data should be analyzed, broken down, and used as a foundation for communications planning. It tells you what messages work, and what don’t. And it provides third-party validation for communications activities.
* Audience Identification and Segmentation — Who are we talking to? For years, NCLB was a dialogue between ED and educational researchers. It should be a discussion on Main Street USA, not in the ivory towers. Who is important to getting the law effectively implemented? Who is important to getting it reauthorized? It’s parents, teachers, business leaders, and community leaders across the country. It may be easier dealing with the AFT then rank-and-file teachers, but those individual teachers are the ones who carry the message into the classroom.
* Message Development — Some like to call these sound bites, but sound bites are canned sentences. Messages are the themes that all should be communicating. Whether it be the SecEd or the Secretary of Labor talking about jobs, the message needs to be on the need for NCLB, the progress to date, and the impact it will have on education and economy for decades to come.
* Relationship Development — Be it the media, influencers, organizational leaders, or the like, relationships are key. The days when ED could exclude organizations from the debate are over. They need all the help they can get on NCLB, and need to build the relationships that result in that help.
Then we get into the PR 101. Media relations. Public events. Conferences. New media/Internet. Speaking opportunities. Etc. These are the tactical pieces that ED tends to do well. The key is to bring them together under one umbrella, so all activities are working toward a singular, clear goal. If the tactic doesn’t help us reach the goal, then it isn’t necessarily worth doing. Time is precious. We use it on those activities that make a difference.
This is just the early outline of what an NCLB marketing plan needs to focus on. Sound bites are great, but they are a tactic, not a strategy. Just like the law itself, an NCLB communications plan needs goals. It needs methods of measurement. It needs feedback loops. It needs highly qualified professionals. It needs accountability.
Get a half-dozen communications professionals (with education policy knowledge) in a room for a day. Set some programmatic goals. Embrace the Yankelovich model for changing public behavior. And you could have a real blueprint for selling NCLB across the nation, and moving the debate from inside the ed blob to onto Main Street USA.
NCLB is all about doing what works. This sort of approach works. And it may be the only way we see NCLB reauthorization before the end of 2009.
Best of, Worst of for Student Test Data?
Two data sets on student performance are out this week. But what exactly does the data tell us? And more importantly, what do we say about the data?
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 