NCLB

Time Magazine: Ed Reform Pub of Record?

Eduflack NCLB, PR

We regularly bemoan that the mainstream media doesn’t pay much attention to education reform issues.  Check out the editorial pages of the top 25 dailies, and see how many op-eds or letters to the editor or front-page headlines speak to education topics.  While there are some pockets of strong coverage (USA Today for one), education still lacks the top billing of domestic issues like healthcare or the environment.

And then there is Time magazine.  If you haven’t seen it already, this week’s cover has a picture of a cute baby dressed up as Albert Einstein, under a header noting we have a genius problem.  Or more simply, NCLB is ignoring the smart kids.  Not a new concept, but one that is now getting national attention on newstands across the United States.

Writing about the “smart kids” makes for interesting copy.  While every parent wants their child to fall into that category, it can be difficult to personalize a story on the topic in a way that the reader understands the problem and wants to do something about it (particularly if it may take resources away from their child).  So Eduflack was ready to write this off as a one-time exception, an itch that Time editors needed to scratch.

But Eduflack would be wrong.  Last month, there was the Time cover on Myths about Boys (the good news for those of us with sons is they are not lost causes).  In June, they ran a “Report Card on NCLB” cover.  April brought a cover story on teaching the Bible in public schools.  And December 2006 offered us a great cover series on how to build a student for the 21st century.

That’s five cover stories in the last nine months.  And Eduflack hasn’t even mentioned the April 2006 cover on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Stand Up campaign, billed under the header “Dropout Nation.”

It’s hard enough to get a story written in a publication like Time.  Getting a cover story can be downright impossible.  So what does it say when Time has dedicated five covers in recent months to K-12 education reform issues?  Time recognizes that education reform is a top domestic issue in the United States, and is a top priority for its readers.  There are new and different things are happening in the education arena.  And education issues draw reader attention … and magazine sales.

I don’t know why Time continues to do it, but I’m glad they do.  These collection of covers demonstrate that education reform is more than just NCLB and testing.  Hopefully others can take a lesson from some of Time’s editorial pursuits.   

Leaving a Lasting Ed Footprint

Eduflack NCLB, Obama, Presidential campaign, Reading First, Students

For months now, the drumbeat for education reform in the presidential campaigns has grown louder and louder.  Until recently, we got a tease in a stump speech here, a response to a YouTube question there, but little of any real substance and little of any real meaning.  Democrats have bashed NCLB, promising to overhaul it or kill it off completely.  Republicans have made mention of local control.  But few really tried to wade into the rhetorical waters, seeing if they could withstand the waves generated by the status quoers.

So it was refreshing to see that no fewer than four aspirants — on both sides of the aisle — for our nation’s highest office weaved education into their communications portfolio this week.

In the red corner, we heard Mitt Romney turn a great (though not original) rhetorical phrase, calling education a civil rights issue.  And from Rudy Guiliani, we heard the call for expanded access to school vouchers.  Both are speaking to the same concern — that every child, regardless of where they may lay their heads at night — is entitled to a high-quality, effective education.  And that education is a ticket to success in college and in career.

In the blue corner, we heard from John Edwards, focusing on the need for multiple pathways to high school graduation.  And just yesterday, we heard Barack Obama again praise the potential value of merit pay for teachers.  Here, both candidates called for a little innovation in our education reform, seeing merit in what is either unpopular with key constituencies (Obama) or shaking the foundations of that which we’ve known for decades (Edwards). 

And what can we glean from these forays into the ed reform arena?  First, it seems the growing demand for educational rhetoric and ideas is finally being heard in the campaign offices.  Be it Ed in 08, be it increased questions on the stump in Iowa or South Carolina or New Hampshire, but candidates finally see that education is a top domestic concern of the voters.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we are finally talking about education reform with an eye on the outcomes, not just on the inputs.  For years, education-speak was about what textbooks were purchased, what tests were to be given, and what a teacher payscale may look like.  Our focus was on the front end — what was going in.

With these latest remarks, we may have finally made the shift into outcomes.  The impact charter schools have on low-income students.  Equal access to a high-quality education.  Increased value of a high school diploma.  And rewarding effective teaching.

We’re still a long way from getting to the point where our educational successes are assessed on the achievement of our students and the measurable successes in our classrooms.  But we are starting to get there.  At the end of the day, outcomes are the only reliable measure we have.  We are still a nation at risk.  We are still leaving children behind.  If education is to truly become a civil right, we need to empower our teachers, our schools, and our communities to ensure that all kids get access to instruction that works, all students are measured effectively and equally, and all teachers have the support and incentives needed to drive such a train.

Yes, that is Eduflack’s educational dream.  Once we put aside the NCLB punching bag and start talking about the instructional issues that are of most importance to us and our children, we start seeing what is possible.  Education shouldn’t be a defense of the status quo and a firm “no” to new and innovative ideas.  There is a chance to leave a lasting educational footprint, a footprint that future generations can follow to continued improvement, achievement, and success.
  

“Reading” the Research

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

The early ballots on beginning reading programs are in, and the results are quite interesting.  For those who missed it, the What Works Clearinghouse released its review of the research behind a significant number of beginning reading programs.  EdWeek’s Kathleen Manzo has a good piece on the topic — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/15/01whatworks_web.h27.html.

Following months of criticism regarding Reading First and how programs were chosen or how programs were discouraged from implementation, the WWC’s information is bound to further confuse the issue.  WWC has looked positively on the research behind Reading Recovery, a program that bore the perception of being on the RF black list.  Programs that have benefited under the RF program, like Voyager, posted mixed results.

So what does it all mean?  As Eduflack opined back in March, there is a big difference between WWC and RF.  http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/03/21/can-reading-recover.aspx  And these reviews only strengthen that view.  Knowing all this, how exactly does an ed reformer talk about doing what works in reading instruction, when it seems we have no idea what actually works?

First, it is clear that the WWC (and by extension, IES) is doing its job.  WWC was not designed to hand out gold stars to off-the-shelf basals.  It’s goal was to review and evaluate the research behind what was put in the classroom.  It’s done just that.  Slowly but surely, WWC is helping to change the educational culture, placing a far greater emphasis on the research base.  And they mean real research, not what many pass off for “research” these days.

Second, it demonstrates there is no magic bullet when it comes to reading instruction.  If a school is looking for a quick fix, and believes that one publisher is going to meet all of its reading instruction needs, it is setting itself to be severely disappointed.  Some are strong in alphabetics. Others in comprehension.  And some on general reading achievement.  If you want to get kids reading, you need to understand the specific needs of your classroom or district, and apply the appropriate evidence-based interventions.

Third, this demonstrates there is a notable difference between scientifically based reading research and pre-packaged programs.  Sure, many publishers simply attach the National Reading Panel research to their products, slapping a “research based” sticker on it.  But what NRP actually did is identify those specific research-based components necessary to reading success.  Strong skills in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.  All are necessary.  All come with research-based principles for effective teaching.  WWC is measuring whether those research-based principles are found in the products we use, and whether we can provide that they are effectively conveyed and student achievement is demonstrably measured.

Where does that leave us?  It’s clear we still need a better understand of research, how it is gathered, and how it is evaluated.  And it needs to be good research.  We need to learn the questions to ask about products, understanding whether there is a real research base or whether there is simply some snazzy wrappings to distract us from the lack of evidence.  And we need to continue to push forward on this evolution to a research-based classroom.

At the end of the day, this should not be a debate about Open Court or Trophies or Voyager or Reading Recovery.  The name shouldn’t matter.  We need to really look under the hood, taking a close look at what the program is built on and what results the program is getting.  Our end game is getting all kids reading and boosting student achievement.  That doesn’t come from a logo, a catchy slogan, or a collection of smiling child photos.  It comes from an evidence base.  Like it or not, WWC is getting us a little closer to it.

Droppin’ Out

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Spellings

Eduflack is shocked, shocked, to hear that there is no U.S. participation in the upcoming 12th grade TIMSS.  That’s the big news that Newsweek “broke” late last week (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20205125/site/newsweek/).  Influencers like Ed in ’08 have commented on it this week.

Of course, Eduflack reflected on the implications of the United States dropping out of TIMSS two months ago (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/06/11/opting-out-timss-style.aspx), following a Sarah Sparks article on the issue in Education Daily in early June.  We said it then, and we’ll say it now — It sends the wrong message at the wrong time. 

At a time when we are talking about increased rigor in the schools and the ability to compete for jobs across the world, comparing our science and math abilities to like-minded students in China, India, and Germany is a needed tool.  

I’d like to believe NCES and NSF and others that we don’t want to compete against a B-list international pool and that our educational resources, both financial and human, are better spent in other areas.  But at a time where we are all abuzz about student achievement and multiple measures and global competitiveness, it is the wrong message to just say “no” and close the door.  If not TIMSS, offer a better solution.  Any alternative will do. 
    

Those Lazy, Hazy Days

Eduflack ACT, Marketing, NCLB, PR

In media relations, you learn quickly that if you are looking to dump a story (meaning you need to distribute it, but either don’t want it prominently covered or don’t want too many folks reading it), you either drop it on a Friday afternoon or distribute it on the week between Christmas and New Years.  Little fuss, little muss, and little will be remembered in the coming days.

In the education world, though, it seems that August is often where good stories go to die.  I’ll admit, now is the time when Eduflack’s top concern is whether the Mets can hold off Philly and Atlanta to win the NL East.  Then when you factor in the Edufamily, education reform comes in a strong third (still better than education’s priority in recent voter polling data, which puts it no higher than fifth).

Looking at this week’s Education Week and www.edweek.org, we see a number of interesting stories.  But as it is mid-August, what impact will they have on those down at the shore or those already preparing for the start of the school year?  Earlier this summer, we asked where all of the good stories had gone?  Now we ask, if those good stories come, but come in mid-August, do ed reformers notice them?

Here’s just a sampling of attention-worthy stories:
* NSBA’s survey on social networking and students
* Annual ACT score release
* Current efforts to turn around the Recovery District in New Orleans
* The future impact of NBPTS, and the impact and quality of future NBCTs

The timing of public announcements is a tricky thing.  For the ACT scores announcement, for instance, this is an annual release, and the education media know to anticipate it.  So there is little risk.  For others, August is a double-edged sword.  While readership may be down from the norm, the chances of coverage are dramatically increased.  If we look to the ed reform calendar for September and October, there are already dozens of report releases, conferences, forums, and events.  And that doesn’t even include the communications push from both sides on NCLB reform.

So what’s an educause supposed to do?

Cast a wide net.  Many believe the game is won with an article in Education Week.  Yes, it is an important win, but it isn’t an all-defining act.  We don’t truly understand and appreciate an issue until we have heard it four or five or seven times.  Repetition is key.  We need to hear the same story from different sources and through different channels.  Supplement the EdWeek piece with some regional daily news coverage, postings on multiple websites, emails to your database, and outreach to the blogsphere.  Do it over the course of  few weeks.  Multiple touches, multiple stories, multiplying success.

We’re already starting to see that with NSBA’s study, and ACT has become a master at segmenting its story for national, regional, and statewide significance.  In a field that is so big on modeling, hopefully others can pick up some pointers from those orgs that successfully release their reports or promote their events.

August doesn’t have to be a graveyard for well-intentioned education stories.  But to avoid the tombstone, one needs to work harder and work smarter.  A good story, a broad net, and an integrated outreach strategy can make the difference between a one-hit-wonder and a Hall of Famer.     

Reform is More Than a Four-Letter Word

Eduflack AP, higher ed, NCLB, PR, SBRR, STEM

OK, I’ll go first.  My name is Eduflack, and I’m an NCLB-aholic.  That was never my intention.  It just seems that every time I look for information on education reform and how we can improve the schools, I’m sucked in by the flashing lights and attractive packaging of NCLB stories.  Even when I try to get away from it, someone is offering me a taste of NCLB.  Some HQT here, some accountability there, and a whole lot of SBRR just about everywhere.  I admit it, I’m hooked.  And I like it.

And as much as I am an unapologetic supporter of the law and its goals, I also realize there is far more to education reform than NCLB.  Some of those topics — like high school reform and STEM — are already being discussed as additions to NCLB 2.0.  But there has to be more to school improvement than our federal elementary and secondary education act.

Leave it to Checker Finn and Diane Ravitch to remind us of what else is out there.  In a Wall Street Journal commentary yesterday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118653759532491305.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries), the two focus on their desire to protect liberal arts education in the K-12 curriculum.  Their goal: to ensure we continue to teach history, civics, literature, and such subjects alongside our math and science requirements.

During a time when we are so focused on our “world is flat” economy and competition with India, China, and other nations around the globe, Ravitch and Finn’s piece makes one take pause.  They argue that to truly be competitive, students not only need technical skills, but they need to understand people, need to be thoughtful, and need to be equipped to question authority and ask, “why?” 

Ultimately, they raise the issue of whether it needs to be all or nothing.  Successful schools can focus on STEM and core subject assessments.  But they can also teach the Great Books and Western Civ.

For two individuals who are best known for their research, they deserve credit for personalizing their cause.  Citing the “academic” paths that made Steve Jobs, Alan Greenspan, and Warren Buffett successes helps most doubters see that it is not the academic major on the diploma, but what one does with their knowledge that really matters.  And their turn of the phrase, calling for “leaves and flowers” to be added to STEM, definitely leaves it mark. 

The great rhetorical challenge now is how one keeps focus on the NCLB building blocks necessary to provide the path to high-quality liberal arts education.  Or more simply, how do you say we are spending too much time and money and effort on NCLB, when the reading skills NCLB provides under Reading First are essential to any student understanding Shakespeare or the great philosophers? 

Regardless, with their think piece, Finn and Ravitch have definitely thrown the opening pitch in what could be a very interesting ed reform ballgame.  If they can continue to talk about it, outside of the context of NCLB, it could also be one that fills the stands. 

“Pay Attention to Me!”

Eduflack NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign

Ed in ’08 is spending tens of millions of dollars to move education reform to the forefront of the 2008 presidential debates.  Richard Whitmire and the Education Writers Association are flooding the early primary states, calling on the presidential candidates to stand up and articulate their education platforms.  Strong resources, smart folks, proven tactics, and unwavering commitment.  All the components we say need to be in a successful PR campaign.

Despite that, education reform is still barely moving the rhetorical needle in the presidential campaigns.  We all agree a strong K-12 education is necessary for life success, necessary for a good job, and necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century global economy.  Good education allows us to focus on issues like health care, jobs, the environment, public safety, and the like.  Education is the gateway to the issues that dominate both our worries and our hopes for ourselves and our families.

So why can’t we get those seeking our vote to talk about such an important issue?  Are they still formulating their opinions and policies on student achievement, assessment, teacher quality, and the like?  Or do they fail to see the benefit of speaking on what could be controversial topics to their political bases?

Eduflack would like it to be the former.  I’d love to think that ed policy advisors are in Chicago and New York and Albuquerque and Charlotte and Boston and New York and all cities in between, hard at work on ways to improve preK, ELL, teacher training, reading, and college preparedness issues.  I’d be thrilled to know that come the start of the school year, we will see new proposals for strengthening NCLB, for universal preK, for improving graduation rates.  I want to believe that ed reform train is coming quickly down the tracks.

But I’m not hearing the whistle and I’m not seeing the lights.  And that makes me worry the reason for this quiet period is the latter.  Democrats don’t want to offend teachers unions by talking about accountability and improving NCLB.  Republicans don’t want to talk about the federal role in education.  And neither want to talk about the financial costs, the political commitment, and the hard realities that come with meaningful school improvement.

I urge, I dare, I beg the candidates to prove me wrong.  Senator Clinton, let’s continue talking about preK.  Senator Obama, I want to hear more about your after school/summer school plans.  Governors Richardson and Huckabee and Romney, let’s hear about the recent improvements in student achievement in your states.  Tell us the stories of what you’ve done and what you dream of doing to improve our schools and give all kids the skills, knowledge, and hope they need to be the successes we all want them.

We deserve Lincoln-Douglass style discussions on the future of public education in the United States, not a 30-second soundbite coming the night before the primary.  Step up to the stump.  We’ve kept it warm for you.
   

Shiny, Happy Teachers

Eduflack NCLB

We’ve all heard the urban legend of the North American school teacher.  They leave their profession in droves year after year.  Teachers are unhappy.  They’re disappointed about their pay and their work conditions.  Something, anything, needs to be done to improve the job.  That’s the only way we can fix this enormous problem and ensure that we have teachers in all classrooms.

For all those who believe in such legends, check out the latest study from the National Center for Education Statistics.  NCES looked at 1992-93 ed school graduates, and monitored them for 10 years.  What did they find?  A job satisfaction rate of 93% after 10 years on the job.  Yes, nine of 10 teachers is happy in their position.  http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007163

What’s more, only 13% of those who left teaching did so because of low pay.

This was no small sample.  NCES surveyed 9,000 teachers across the nation.  And they seemed to do a strong job disaggregating the data, looking specifically at minority teachers.  For those concerned with teacher quality, effective teaching, collective bargaining, and the like, it’s a good report to check out.

Eduflack waits with baited breath, though, to see how such a study will be received by the education status quo and by the educational talking heads.  These findings fly in the face of popular opinion, and many are going to resist accepting them as fact.  But what else is new?

Clearly, there is one main area of criticism the chattering class with sling at this NCES study.  For the most part, it is pre-NCLB.  We’ll hear that this isn’t representative of a classroom in 2007.  What about high-stakes testing?  What about greater accountability?  What about the push from the national on down breaking the backs and spirits of our teachers?

Such criticisms, of course, are hogwash.  Testing and standards and accountability are nothing new.  These teachers surveyed were hip-deep in the reading and math wars of the 1990s and in the growth of testing and such.  They know the good, the bad, and the ugly of being an educator in today’s environment, and they still give the experience a big ole gold star.

Sure, some will attack and some will ignore the study.  But these findings trumpet one key education communications lesson — national membership organizations do not necessarily speak for their individual members.  Such a lesson seems common sense, yes.  But when it comes to educators, when we hear from the NEA and the AFT, we take the organizational voice as the voice of the individual as well.  And that’s a big mistake.

Successful communication requires both a macro and a micro approach.   Yes, it is important to engage membership organizations like teachers unions.  But it is also important to reach those teachers who are being asked to do more and are being held accountable.  Identifying best practices in the classroom comes from the teachers that are driving student achievement, not necessarily from the union.  And lasting implementation of education reform requires buy-in directly from the end user — the teacher.  After all, we’re asking them to change their behaviors.  If we are trying to improve teaching and boost student achievement, we should be talking directly with the teacher and relating to their needs, beliefs, and experiences.

The NCES study reminds us of that.  Sure, many will continue to think that the rhetorical joustings coming from the NEA on NCLB and HQT and other issues is fine dinner theater.  But it shouldn’t be the end all-be all of the teacher voice in the debate.  Teachers react to their schools, their colleagues, and their students each and every day.  That’s how they gage their satisfaction and their success.  It’s not based on a CBA or on a legislative white paper or a stump speech at the national convention.

The larger question, of course, becomes how we make sure that teacher voice is injected into the current NCLB debate.  How do we get the teacher a seat at the table equal to the union rep?

“We Want NCLB” Cont.

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Spellings

We’ve talked about the ETS study, the Scripps Howard study, and the PDK study on public opinion of NCLB.  A mixed bag, yes.  Eduflack’s underlying takeaway remains that the more the general public knows about NCLB, the more supportive they are of the law.  (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/06/25/getting-to-know-you-.aspx)

Today, we have a new study to underscore that notion.  Education Next magazine has released new findings from an NCLB study led by Harvard University’s JFK School and conducted by researchers at Harvard, University of Chicago, and Brown University.  http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/8806742.html  Special thanks to Alexander Russo and This Week in Education for throwing the spotlight on the study.

What does it tell us?  Sure, it demonstrates that the American people generally support NCLB and want to see it reauthorized, despite what some in the vocal minority may say.  Interestingly, folks seem to be more supportive of NCLB than they are of their own local schools.  This is a far cry from data in the early 1990s, where people said the public schools were in disarray, but their own local schools were doing great.

While that’s all well and good, the study’s most interesting data comes in the area of accountability.  If you read the popular media, you would think there was an Evita-like uprising against testing and the quantitative assessment of student achievement.  It is thought that most Americans are out there bemoaning teaching to the test, worried that we’re overtesting our kids, and raising their collective blood pressures about “high stakes” testing.

In reality, we want more accountability, more data, and national standards.  Quoting Education Next’s announcement:


  • Nearly three-quarters of survey respondents support having a single national proficiency standard in public education rather than letting every state set its own proficiency standards.
  • 81 percent support requiring students in certain grades to pass an exam before they proceed to the next grade; 85 percent support requiring students to pass an exam before graduating from high school.
  • 60 percent support the practice of publishing the average test performance of each school’s students.
Wow.  Imagine that.  We want national standards.  We want accountability.  We want to know how our schools and our students are performing.  It’s almost like the public expects that we are spending our education dollars effectively and are making sure that our schools are doing what works.  What a novel concept.

Kudos to Education Next and the Hoover Institution for injecting this needed public opinion data into the debate.  It only further supports what Eduflack has been writing until he is blue in the knuckles.  We all share the goals and mission of NCLB.  We want to see our students succeed, we want to measure that success, and we want to replicate those successes where schools and students are struggling.  And we want to ensure that our child can compete again one from a neighboring city or from one across the country. 

Hopefully, the U.S. Department of Education is listening to what the public wants.  We all can hear the footsteps of NCLB reauthorization approaching.  That plodding horse has to choose between two paths — weakening the law or strengthening it.  Looking at EdNext’s research, along with ETS, we should choose the latter without hesitation.  It’s what works.  It’s what is best for the future of our nation.  And it’s what the public (those footing the bill) want.

So let me pose a question from the NCLB 1.0 exit exam:

NCLB is up for reauthorization.  ED wants it reauthorized.  The American public supports reauthorization.  Data demonstrates that NCLB is working, and the more information about NCLB that is distributed, the more support the law gains (outside of Congress).  Should Secretary Spellings and ED:

A. Launch an aggressive marketing/PR campaign highlighting the goals of NCLB, its successes to date, and specific improvements focused on greater accountability and student success
B. Get defensive about NCLB attacks, trying to answer criticisms one by one, being sure to repeat the attack before they say it isn’t true
C. Do nothing, hoping all the controversies disappear and are replaced by lollipops and rainbows

Anyone who has been in the political trenches knows there is only one right answer to this question.  If you want an “A” for reauthorization efforts, you need to strongly answer A on the ole bubble sheet.  If we truly want to strengthen the law and provide all students an opportunity for success, the time has come, oh ED of mine, to start selling NCLB.

We’ve got a great product with strong customer support and strong proof it lives up to its claims.  Lay those puzzle pieces together, and the PR strategy almost writes itself. 

Deskilling Our Students?

Eduflack early college, higher ed, Marketing, NCLB, PR, Students

Are our high schools effectively preparing our students for life beyond the schoolhouse doors?  It is a question that groups like National Governors Association, Jobs for the Future, Alliance for Excellent Education, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others have lent their policy heft to.  And it is an issue where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has lent the heft of its coffers to.  In a few short years, high school improvement has become THE ed reform issue.

This week, Eduflack was down at the Education Industry Association conference, hearing tales of SES, charters, technology, and entrepreneurship.  There was one concept, though, that has stuck deep into the troubled mind of Eduflack.  Deskilling.

When we look at high schools, we recognize that most of our secondary schools are still built on an educational model that is now vastly out of date.  That’s why we are trying to restore rigor and relevance to the schools, demonstrating that high school is a necessary step to both college and career.

But how do we do it?  In districts throughout the nation, we still have high school students sitting in row after row of desks, reading from hard-cover textbooks, taking mimeographed quizzes, and generally using the learning tools and approaches that their parents once used.  Simply, we’re teaching 21st century students with 19th century approaches.

These students, of course, are coming to class equipped in a way their parents never envisioned.  Strong computer skills.  Communication skills derived from websites like MySpace and the like.  Organizational skills coming from sites like MeetUp.  Multimedia learning abilities from iPods and YouTube.  Instant messaging.  Blogs.  Students are equipped with an unending list of skills and abilities that most of our public schools still don’t have a handle on.  They utilize multiple ways of learning, without even knowing they are being taught.

And how do we approach such students, once they pass through the high school entryway?  Simply, we deskill them.  Instead of building on these abilities and providing instruction and learning opportunities through the mediums and vehicles that students know (and that future employers will benefit from) we are asking many of our students to leave their knowledgebase at the door, and pick up the textbook, sit at their one-piece desk, and be educated the way their forefathers were.

That’s a cryin’ shame.  If we look under the hood of high school reform, we’re seeing successes in early colleges, redesigned classrooms, one-to-one computing, and distance education.  We’re succeeding where our classrooms are evolving and meeting the learning, socialization, and communication skills of the students we’re serving.  If we expect more from our students, we need to work with them, and not against them.  We need to enhance their skills, not discourage them.  We need to equip them, not deskill them.

If we want a skilled workforce, we can’t send the message that such skills have no place in a traditional classroom.  In our multimedia world, we need a multimedia education.  Don’t know what that means?  Try asking one of the kids in your class.  I’m sure they’ll be happy to teach, if we’re ready to learn.