Over the last few months, Eduflack has been hard on Margaret Spellings. For the past year, the U.S. Department of Education has been a communications fetal position on most reforms. Given the opportunity to be out in front, defining measures of success with regard to NCLB, Reading First, teacher proficiency, and accountability, ED has generally retreated, leaving it to critics to set the terms and measures of success, and leaving advocates and supporters in the field desperate and hungry for any form of communications support and PR blocking as they work to successfully implement changes that ultimately will improve student performance.
Perhaps Spellings has heard the growing calls for communications support in the field. Perhaps ED has finally determined that the old plan of putting your head down on the desk until the NCLB criticisms stop just wasn’t going to work. At a time when folks are wondering if there is the muscle to push NCLB reauthorization through, or if it will be left to another Secretary and another Administration in 2009, Spellings has shown the moxie and communications savoir faire she demonstrated when she first took the helm of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you’ll recall, a few weeks ago the House of Representatives sent a shot across the bow with regard to RF. (Playing Politics with Reading First) A bold communications tactic, House appropriators moved to slash $600 million from Reading First to send a message to Spellings on student lending, IG investigations, and concerns of conflicts of interest. The message was heard around the reading world, with the likes of IRA, SFA, and others joining with Spellings to defend a program that is proven effective in teaching our children to read and provides virtually every student the skills necessary to achieve in school. We waited with baited breath for Spellings’ response.
Spellings responded, and responded rhetorically strong. She has finally gotten personal. And it is just the communications approach she needed in such a situation. When you make the story relevant to the listener, and relate it in direct terms that they understand and that they know affects them or the people they know, you communicate more effectively than just throwing out facts and figures. Yes, we know that RF works. We know SBRR works. We know that more children know how to read today because of NCLB. But how do you get Chairman Obey to see that through all of the rhetoric, hyperbole, and vitriol.
Answer — make it personal. Spellings retort to Obey was a simple one. If the mis-directed cuts to RF become law, Obey’s home state of Wisconsin loses $8.5 million in RF grants. That’s less money for books. Less money for teacher training. Less money for professional development. Less money for interventions. And it is less money for the schools, the classrooms, and the teachers in his state who need it most.
Finally, Spellings has shifted the debate. The threat isn’t about hurting her or the RF office. Obey is threatening to take hundreds of millions of dollars from elementary school classrooms, teachers, and kids throughout the nation.
I’m all for political gamesmanship. Its a necessary piece of education reform. But no one should lose sight of the end game — improving education quality and opportunity for all. Spellings remembered that. And she reminded Obey of it in the most personal of communications ways, by pasting the cuts smack in the center of his Wisconsin district.
NCLB
Playing Politics with Reading First
For years, Eduflack worked for members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Having seen the annual appropriations process unfold year after year, I had come to the belief that, for the most part, politics had to sit outside the Appropriations Committee’s door.
That is, until this afternoon. David Hoff has a good synopsis on educationweek.org (http://www.educationweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/08/41budget.h26.html). The root of Eduflack’s ire. The U.S. House of Representatives is calling for a 60% cut in Reading First funding for FY2008.
We won’t get into the politics of all this, other than to say that one should be careful with the political symbolism they seek to use, as it may actually become reality. But the spending games raise an important communication issue — the need to be proactive and define the game.
You’ve heard it here before. For years now, critics have defined Reading First. At first, they attacked the personalities behind the law and preached fear about introducing proven instructional approaches to our classrooms. Over the last year, they have attacked (and rightfully so) the problems with RF implementation, implying that such issues demonstrate that the law doesn’t work.
To the contrary, we have begun seeing significant evidence that Reading First and scientifically based reading research work, and works well. You can see it in the data released by Spellings before her visit to Capitol Hill. you can see it in this week’s CEP report. And you can see it in countless school districts across the nation that have implemented the program with fidelity and have reaped the benefit in terms of student performance.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the message getting out there. And that’s a cryin’ shame. To all but the die-hard true believers, RF is a program of conflicts of interest, decrees from on high, and IG reports. Those exceptions to good work have now become the rule.
Don’t believe it? Just look at how House Appropriations Chairman David Obey couches the massive cut to a program that works — “This [Reading First] cut will not be restored until we have a full appreciation of the shenanigans that have been going on.”
Doesn’t matter if the program works. Doesn’t matter if we see student achievement gains, improved teaching, enthusiastic learners, and kids who are reading. RF is now defined by “shenanigans,” and that’s about as far off message as one can get.
So what can Spellings and her crew do about it? I refer you back to a previous posting. Let’s make it positive. Let’s make it results-based. Let’s make it personal. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/04/11/talking-research.aspx
As an aside, the one positive result, though, of today’s Hill hearing may be its ability to bring parties who have previously been at war with each other together for a common good. We’ve long talked about the need to build a team of advocates, names that will resonate with key audiences and expand support and enthusiasm for the message and the desired action. And the larger the tent of advocates, the more effective the communication and the reform.
Those advocates speaking out against the proposed RF cuts demonstrate the program (and scientifically based education in general) has to be working. In just a few short hours, we have seen individuals who ordinarily wouldn’t share an elevator sharing a common desire to protect RF. Margaret Spellings (through a spokesperson). The International Reading Association. Bob Slavin. They may have different goals, different views, and different intentions, but they share the view that you don’t cancel the game because you’ve had problems with the turnstiles. “Shenanigans” around the fringes simply isn’t a reason to deny millions of American students the resources and funding they need to learn to read and to succeed.
While SFA and IRA and ED and everyone in between may be coming from different perspectives, they all seem to share in the goal that research-proven reading is necessary if our students and schools are to succeed.
I may have just seen a razorback fly by my window, but if RF is able to be bring those disparate, yet passionate, education advocates together, it must be doing something right.
Great Test-pectations
Much of this week’s education attention has been focused on the CEP’s findings that No Child Left Behind is indeed effective. Though many have gone out of their way to mitigate the findings, offer up alternative explanations, discount the impact, or generally change the fact, one thing is certain. NCLB does work. In those states where CEP found student achievement gains, there is only one common denominator — all of those states have made NCLB-based reforms. NCLB may not be the only reason for the successes, but it is undoubtedly a major driver behind the improvement.
More interesting, though, was Ledge King’s piece (with an assist from Greg Toppo) in USA Today, looking at the broad discrepancies of testing benchmarks across the states. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-06-06-schools-main_N.htm
At the very heart of NCLB was the commitment that every American student deserved the opportunity to succeed. That was how the law was marketed. Regardless of race or income or neighborhood, every student is afforded the opportunity to learn, to achieve, and to succeed, both in and beyond their K-12 experience.
But in the Gannett analysis, King finds that such an opportunity is still a goal, and not necessarily a reality. The beauty of federal education reform is that measures of achievement and success are expected to be uniform. Instead, as King reports, we see that reading achievement in Mississippi versus achievement in Massachusetts couldn’t be more different. And those differences are going to be even more acute when it matters — in postsecondary education and in the workplace.
Perhaps that’s part of the problem. Even for those in the know, NCLB is perceived as an elementary school law. With its focus on elementary school reading and middle school assessments, it is seen as far more Click, Clack, Moo than The Sun Also Rises. An unfair focus, sure, but public perception is the new reality.
The thousand-dollar question is how do we take what we know from CEP and others and use it to address the problems that King has identified. The answer is an easy one. It may not be one that Secretary Spellings is particularly fond of, but the single greatest way to truly level the playing field and fulfill NCLB’s mission of providing all students an opportunity for success is found in two simple words — national standards.
At the end of the day, student proficiency is student proficiency. Achievement should not have a geographic accent. It shouldn’t be mitigated by per-pupil spending ratios. It shouldn’t be defined by the lowest common denominator. And it surely shouldn’t be disaggregated away. Achievement is achievement. Success is success. It doesn’t matter if it the MCAS, the SOL, NAEP, or any other single assessment tool. Student proficiency needs to be a common, universal measure. It is the only way we can ensure every American student is reading at a proficient level in the fourth grade, prepared for the rigors of our changing high schools, and ready for the opportunities available in either postsecondary education or career. If education is the great equalizer, its measures of that education need to be equal.
That’s how one effectively sells national standards to the teachers and parents who are skeptical of the federal government’s ability to effectively implement and manage meaningful education reforms. We don’t want to hear about statistical analyses, variations, and experimental models. We want to know that if our kid is deemed proficient in reading, that means he is able to read at the same level as an average fourth grader in Oregon, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. When she gets a B in Algebra II, we expect that a B in our school equals a B in LAUSD, Chicago, Dallas ISD, or DC Public Schools. We might not say it, but we assume our children meet a common standard when their academic abilities are assessed. And we depend on it, believing those assessments mean our children are able to keep up with any student in college or compete with any graduate for a job.
So how do we talk about it? At the end of the day, national standards are borne out of national policy. NCLB is that policy. Thanks to CEP, EdTrust, and a number of other education organizations, we have our messaging. It works. NCLB works. National education reform works. Reading First works. Scientifically based education works. Results-based teacher training and instruction works.
It works because it is effective. It works because it generates results. It works because it established a national standard for teaching and learning. And we can now see it working in states, districts, schools, and classrooms just like those in our neighborhood. No getting around it — NCLB works.
And that’s the marketing slogan. That’s the soundbite. That’s the bumper sticker. NCLB works. Data proves it. Teachers and administrators and parents and students have embraced it. Curriculum and professional development has been built around it. Critics have tried to tear it down for five years, to little avail. And you know what, NCLB still works.
The general communications mantra is to keep it simple, and it just doesn’t get any simpler than that. The law is effective, and there is the data and the emotional connection in classrooms around the country to prove it. Now ED just needs an effective messenger to deliver it. How hard can that be?
The Continued Need for Reading First
You’ve heard Eduflack say it time and again — Reading First works. Now you can read the specifics in a commentary Eduflack joint-authored on <a href="http://www.ednews.org.
Check”>www.ednews.org.
Check it out at http://www.ednews.org/articles/12326/1/The-Continued-Need-for-Reading-First/Page1.html
Beating a (Near) Dead Horse
It’s been a heckuva week for No Child Left Behind. Exhibit One is Alfie Kohn’s Opposing View in the May 31 USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/05/opposing_view_t.html?csp=34) calling for the immediate demolition of NCLB. His reasoning — an emphasis on testing and a flawed study by the Teacher Network that Eduflack had some real issues with the first time around (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/04/03/teach-your-children-well.aspx)
This sort of attack has been waged on NCLB since its inception, and this is hardly Kohn’s first foray into the debate. Perhaps one of the most prominent opponents of testing, he has railed the law for the past five years in his crusade against strict accountability, perpetuating the myth that NCLB was created as some sort of conspiracy to privatize our nation’s public schools. While he spins a gripping tale, Kohn is hardly an impartial observer in this fight.
Exhibit Two is the recent survey from Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University earlier this week stating that a majority of Americans want to either revise or eliminate NCLB. (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/23421)
This should be no surprise to anyone. Do what our friends at This Week in Education did and take a look at media coverage of NCLB. It is virtually all negative. States suing the federal government. Scandals and congressional hearings on potential conflicts of interest. State and local officials bemoaning AYP and student achievement goals. Urban legends of teachers being fired en masse because they fail to meet NCLB standards. If that’s all you see, even the most ardent of NCLB supporters would grow sour on the law.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The largest problem that NCLB reauthorization faces is one of PR and marketing. Secretary Spellings and President Bush have let the opponents of NCLB dictate the terms of the debate for far too long. As a result, NCLB is tagged with all negatives — anti-teacher, unfunded mandate, conflicts of interest, too strictly enforced, and requiring too much from our teachers, schools, and kids. I can probably count on one hand the number of news articles from the past few months that focused on some of the positives — increased student performance, quality teachers in the classroom, effective instruction, and a level educational playing field.
NCLB is not going to win by playing defense. Opposition to the law is growing because we are giving supporters nothing to hold onto. We are failing to provide a rock-solid foundation of mission and results on which to stand. We simply aren’t giving NCLB supporters the results they need to be proud of the law and its results.
What is there to be proud of? What should advocates be talking about?
* Decision-making is now supposed to be based on the research. Only proven-effective methods of instruction should be used in our classrooms. We do what works. No exceptions.
* Our teachers are set up for success. We now make sure that teachers have the background knowledge, pedagogy, and skill to lead a classroom. Those that don’t have access to huge pools of professional development funding. As a result, teachers are both qualified and effective.
* Student achievement is on the rise. We are just now starting to see the effects of Reading First and SBRR. And in those schools and districts where it has been implemented with fidelity, we can see gains in student reading scores. Students can learn to read with effective, proven instruction.
* Data collection is a priority. We can’t improve without good numbers highlighting our strengths and weaknesses. NCLB has ensured that schools, districts, and states are now collecting the data we need to effectively assess instruction. We’re effectively disaggregating that data. And we’re now able to apply the proper interventions to further improve instruction in our schools.
* We simply expect more. For decades, we have taught to the lowest common denominator, worried that we were asking or expecting too much from our teachers and our students. Today, we have raised expectations. We talk about rigor and achievement. And as a result, we give virtually every student an opportunity to succeed in both school and in life.
If we really want to shift the debate on NCLB, and begin talking about the issues that are truly important to the success of our schools and our nation, we should focus on the 800-pound gorilla in the room — national standards. Yes, it will raise the ire of those on both the left and the right. But at the end of the day, state growth models state-by-state negotiations of standards simply aren’t going to cut it. If the United States is to truly compete — both educationally and academically — with the likes of China, India, and rising countries in the Middle East — we need to adopt serious national standards or benchmarks. It is the only way we can ensure that the brand — American education — means the same in rural Alabama, South Central LA, Washington, DC, and the North Shore of Massachusetts.
Let’s see a presidential candidate, any presidential candidate, take that issue on. Break from the educational norms and expectations and start speaking on a bold idea that could make a real difference. Go on, I dare ya!
Make ’em laugh
When you think of cutting edge humor on the topics of the day, the first two names you think of are Jon Stewart and … Margaret Spellings? Greg Toppo of USA Today asks the important “why” question. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-21-spellings-daily-show_N.htm?csp=34
While yours truly is quoted in Toppo’s piece on Spellings’ appearance on the Daily Show, it forced me to think a little more about the question. What exactly is the communications benefit of opening one up to Stewart?
As always, we have three simple answers:
* First, Spellings is trying put the scandals behind her. After IG investigations and new concerns on student loans, Spellings and her team have been playing defense for well over a year. Opening oneself up to Stewart’s probing, laughing with the audience when he points to the failings of the U.S. Department of Education, and then offering a public “we’ll try harder next time” allows Spellings to declare these issues over with. She’s talked them out with the national media. She’s met with the trade media. She’s convened the bloggers. Now she’s doing the comedy shows. It is time to move on to a new topic. She’s exhausted the issue. Nothing left to say, and no one left to say it to.
* Second, she needs to personalize the issue. When Spellings first took office, she entered with press any public official would envy. Glowing profiles in major publications. Nonexistent criticisms in the media. A general lovefest. Today, no mention of Spellings or ED is complete without the terms “scandal” or “IG.” Putting Spellings out in front reminds us of the person behind ED. It no longer is the bureaucracy that has corrupted student loans or “the man” who has botched RF implementation. Now, you are attacking a nice woman who reminds you of your next-door-neighbor or your kid’s teacher or that woman who sings at the church. An appearance on the Daily Show reminds us of who is really behind the curtain. And she comes with a fairly decent Q rating.
* Finally, it has reached the stage where any publicity is good publicity. Consider this the policymaker’s 10 steps to media recovery. She has listened to the criticism. She has vowed to follow the IG’s reccs. She has stood up before Congress and the media. And tonight she is standing up to a top Bush critic, probably second only to the likes of Michael Moore and Al Franken. This is win/win for her. If Stewart makes her look foolish (which he likely won’t) then it was to be expected. If she does well (which we should expect) then she stood in the lion’s den and survived. She showed she was fearful of no issue and no man, and we credit her with suffering the slings and arrows. She gets good pub for putting herself out there in the first place.
At the end of the day, we can only hope her public affairs team has properly trained her for the Daily Show, giving her talking points, writing some witty zingers and responses, and drilling her until she is comfortable with dry, wry, sarcastic humor. She will survive, and she may even make them laugh.
Open Our Borders, Open Our Schools?
When Eduflack was launched, I made clear the intent was to look at how effectively we are communicating education reform. But from time to time, issues come up where I just have to throw out a thought or hurl out a question. And this past week has been one of those times. I ask the question, someone knowledgeable, please provide the answer.
“With the expected passage of President Bush’s new immigration reform bill, what impact will the new law have on ELL education in the United States? And how does this fit in with the goals and expectations of NCLB, particularly as it faces reauthorization?”
I, for one, think ELL is one of those important issues that has gotten lost in current federal policy, particularly as it relates to Reading First. But I open up my doors, and my pages, to anyone who would like a chance on the soapbox here. I yield the floor.
Injecting the Education Continuum in the Campaigns
Kudos to Inside Higher Ed’s Scott Jaschik for today’s piece on how the 18 active 2008 presidential candidates are talking about education — primarily higher education. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/16/election If the early results are any indication, it seems that college access and student loans are THE message with regard to education platforms.
Why?
* It is easy to define. Most Americans understand the value of a college education. They know college is expensive. They know student loans are available. These are terms of issues the average voter understands and can relate to.
* It’s a hot PR topic. The New York State Attorney General has made student loans (and student lender relationships) the scandal of the day. It is in the news, it is the focus of congressional hearings. From a communications standpoint, it is the current wave that most need to at least test out.
* It’s relatable. The rich can afford to go to any college. Funny thing is, most Americans perceive themselves as being in the middle class, even if demographically they are not. When you start talking about fairness and ensuring the middle class have access and funding to attend the college of their choice. When those swing voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Florida and the like here the argument that we need to make college more affordable for the average American, they think the candidates are talking to them.
What’s missing, though, is an equally passionate debate on the education continuum. Postsecondary education is important for virtually every student in America. But what will the candidates do to ensure that students are prepared for college? How will they deal with the 1.1 million high school dropouts each year? How about the 30-50% of college students who have to take remedial courses to get up to speed? And how will they ensure that students are gaining knowledge and skills related to what they want to do with their lives?
The general silence on K-12 issues at this stage of the presidential campaigns can only mean one of two things. Either all candidates agree that NCLB is essentially steering us in the right direction, and requires only the moderate tinkering Congress and its influencers are discussing or they simply don’t have answers (or even thoughts) on how to further improve primary and secondary education in the United States.
Unfortunately, it is probably the latter, and not the former. So I’ve got three pieces of advice for the candidates, Democrat and Republican, to remember when crafting their messages:
* As in generations past, we all want to see our kids do better than us. The key to that is education. Making sure they are achieving at grade level by fourth grade. Instilling independent thinking in the middle grades. And advocating for both rigor and relevance in high school. Success requires an education continuum, not just a college degree.
* K-12 education touches every U.S. citizen. We all went to school. We all pay taxes to support our schools. We all have or know of children in the schools. Promise us you will ensure that those kids are getting the best and that our taxes are being well spent. And tell us how you will measure it and hold policymakers and schools and teachers accountable.
* Education is not just a learning issue, it is a work issue. Too many people put school in one bucket, career in the other. A strong K-12 education is necessary to a strong, effective workforce. Whether you be wearing a blue or a white collar, you need core reading, math, problem solving, and teamwork skills to succeed. Want a good job, you need a good education. And it is up to the President, the Congress, the Governors, the Mayors, and the Superintendents to ensure that our schools are delivering such an education. It is the only way to truly keep our economy, and our nation, strong.
Now is the stage of the campaign where candidates start telling us what they stand for and what they believe in. And their are few issues that define character and a campaign than education and education improvement. Here’s wishing these ideas start making their way into stump speeches and campaign commercials.
Training a Better Teacher
America’s teachers colleges are failing at effectively training a complete cadre of successful educators. That is news coming from a new study from the Education Schools Project, a effort headed by Art Levine. You can see a good write-up of the study in Education Week this week — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/05/09/36levine.h26.html.
These are important conclusions, indeed. But are they news? For more than a decade, education researchers and education reformers alike have raised serious concerns about the quality and effectiveness of teacher training. That’s one of the reasons NCLB’s architects including HQT provisions in the law. And that’s why so many are clamoring for a “Flexner-style” study of our nation’s teachers colleges. (Kudos to Nancy Grasmick for actually attempting to do it in Maryland).
In fact, it is the same message that Reid Lyon has preached for more than a decade now. You can see in in the congressional record with testimony Lyon presented as early as 1997, well before NCLB was even a flicker in the eye of the greatest minds in Texas education.
So why the attention now? The answer is simple. Concerns about teacher preparation (as delivered in this study) are getting the attention they justly deserve because of the messenger. We’ve talked about this before. Successful communication requires a good message, an understanding of the audiences you are talking to, AND a credible messenger.
Art Levine is such a messenger. As a former teacher educator at Columbia, he is a member of the club. He understands the challenges and obstacles that face many a teachers college. He has credibility with the establishment. But while at Teachers College, he was also a reformer. He wasn’t afraid to throw rocks at that same establishment, pushing his colleagues to do it differently and do it better. As a result, he possesses the respect and gravitas that allows him to call on his former colleagues to change their ways.
When Lyon has said the same things, he is attacked for seeking to destroy our system of higher education and accused of showing no respect for teachers and teacher educators alike. Unfair? Unjust? Inaccurate? Absolutely. But if the audiences you are seeking to reach believe it, it sometimes doesn’t matter what the truth is. The legend, whispers, and sense of political correctness take center stage and become the new reality.
Regardless of the personalities, what remains solely important is the message here. We need more qualified, effective teachers in the classrooms. And with so many veteran teachers preparing for retirement in the coming years, that need is growing more acute daily. If the Education Schools Project study can get teachers colleges to strengthen their preservice training and build a better cadre of classroom teachers, then the message has been delivered effectively.
And if that happens, there will be many, including both Levine and Lyon, who deserve the credit.
Vote for Ed
Every election year, we seeing polling numbers that show education is usually one of the top three “issues” for the average American. Yet when it comes time to pull the ole lever in the voting booth, few Americans seem to cast their votes on education policy stances. Such a disconnect demonstrates the chasm between public awareness of an issue and public action on the same issue.
Along comes Ed. Or rather the Ed in ’08 (www.edin08.com) campaign launched last week (and this week) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation. As part of their Strong American Schools initiative, Ed in ’08 seeks to make education reform the primary domestic policy issue in the 2008 presidential elections.
Many critics have been quick to discount the effort, believing that such issue campaigns have been unsuccessful in the past. But none have been envisioned at the size and scale that Ed in ’08 is intending. Others continue to believe 2008 will remain a one-issue race (begins with “I” and ends with “Q”), and everything else will get lost in the fringes. But I have greater faith than that.
Without question, Strong American Schools has some potential obstacles to face. The largest is voter apathy. The key to success for Ed in ’08 is driving new audiences into the political process, getting them to take a stand, demand attention on their issues, and casting their votes based on the attention those issues receive. That means engaging individuals who have either disengaged from the process or who have never wanted to play in the first place.
The second is the NIMBY factor. Reform is all about getting people to stand up and say the current system is failing ME, and I deserve better. But if you talk to the average parent, or even the average teacher, about eduction reform, you usually get the same response. “The nation and/or the state is in real trouble and needs fixing. But my own school is doing just fine.” We don’t want to believe we are teaching in or sending our children to a school that just isn’t up to par.
What does all this mean for Governor Romer and the folks at Strong American Schools? The mountain before them is not an easy one. They need to overcome cynicism, apathy, and the defenders of the status quo. But it is possible to reach that apex. By employing successful public engagement activities, by taking the message to the disengaged, and by establishing a new paradigm for using a singular policy issue to define a complex political process, they can achieve the bold goals they have set out to reach. We aren’t talking about a plank in a party platform here. We are talking about a shift in public thinking and public action. “We want to strengthen our schools, AND we vote!”
How do we do it?
1. Demand More — Too often, such issue advocacy efforts are about the “no.” Don’t change Medicare. Don’t recalibrate Social Security. Don’t vote for Candidate X because he did Y or Z. Strong American Schools needs to be about the “yes.” What do we need to do to make our schools better? How do we improve NCLB? How do we better prepare and empower our teachers? That means real answers to some difficult questions. For instance, each of the presidential candidates should be asked to complete a survey of hard-hitting questions about K-16 education. And we’re not looking for simple answers to questions like “Do you support teachers unions?” or “Do you support student loans?” By requiring real answers that demand more than a 22-year-old research assistant culling responses from old campaign literature or voting records, the public can get substantive answers to “how” we strengthen our schools. And that information can be used to to engage and empower a new generation of activists and advocates. We aren’t looking for soundbites; we need substantive thinking that demonstrates and understanding for what is happening in my state, in my city, and in my school.
2. Change the Dynamic — Armed with the hard information on what the 18 (gulp) presidential candidates would do to strengthen our schools, we need to use new communications tools to engage those new audiences. 2004 taught us a great deal about new media. Traditional television ads and leafleting remain an important component of any information campaign. But they no longer can get the job done by themselves. The changes advocated by Ed in ’08 require bringing new audiences into the fold — individuals and groups that have not been involved in the presidential process in the past. That means effectively utilizing new media (web sites, blogs, chat rooms, meetups, etc.) and employing time-tested social networking efforts. The goal is to raise the sense of urgency with stakeholders. That means constant access to information and unwaivering calls to action.
3. Turn to New Audiences — As I’ve said earlier, success comes when we tap the concerns and the uneasiness of those previously avoiding the process. For those who are regular voters, it is safe to say 45% vote Democrat, 45% vote Republican, and the fight is for that final 10%, regardless of who the specific candidates are. That’s what pollsters and party activists depend on. You change the game when you introduce new voters into the process. MTV tried that in 1992, seeking to spur Generation X into the voting process. Ed in ’08 has a similar opportunity. Let’s look at Generation X and Generation Y. They are the closest to the issue. Their views of high school, for instance, are still fresh of mind. They know the shortcomings of our schools. They feel, day in and day out, the impact an irrelevant courseload is now having on their ability to win a good job. And they are still optimistic enough that want to fix the problem for their little brothers and sisters and their communities. Let’s get those audiences involved. When we add voices to the debate, we completely shift the playing field. And that shift requires a new look at issues and a new respect of those issues from candidates.
Education reform should be our central domestic policy issue. There is no single issue more important, and no single issue that touches more people in more ways. Education is a health issue. It is a jobs issue. It is an economic development issue. It is a crime issue. And it is an environmental issue. Education touches and influences them all.
What candidate or interest group is going to stand up to oppose strengthening our schools or improving the quality of education in our communities? Some will surely try. There are too many who fight to protect the status quo. And there are some that want to take a huge step backward, undoing the progress we have made in school improvement over the past five years. But by focusing on the end goal, and building a comprehensive, integrated communications effort that both informs and changes public action, Ed in ’08 can succeed.
Strong American Schools has raised the flag. Now is the time to salute and acknowledge that we can settle for nothing less that complete victory. The future of our nation depends on it.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 