It has been a rough couple of weeks for our federal elementary and secondary education act. During a recent road tour, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings speculated that it is unlikely that NCLB will be reauthorized this calendar year. We’re still waiting on Ted Kennedy’s new version of the law. Buck McKeon is just as skeptical as Spellings about the 2008 future of new legislation. The future ain’t too bright in our nation’s capital.
It’s been just as interesting in the states. Most of us know about the long-pending NCLB lawsuit waged by the National Education Association and many states. Now we have new action and new rhetoric in the Mid-Atlantic adding to NCLB’s poor grades.
In Virginia, the state’s legislature this weekend voted to mandate that the Virginia Board of Education explore opting out of NCLB. Citing concerns about ELL students and exceptions (or the lack thereof) made for Virginia students with regard to AYP. It’s a bold move. Pulling out of NCLB would cost the Old Dominion millions upon millions of dollars. And that comes at a time when Gov. Tim Kaine is pushing hard to add universal preK, expand high school pathways, and boost the state’s college-going rates. With such aspirations, it says a lot that Virginia officials are saying it is worth more to refuse the NCLB check from the feds than it is to pay for all of the mandates that come with the law.
Across the border, West Virginia educators told Spellings that NCLB’s mandates are crushing teacher morale. Standardized tests and the scripted curriculums that come with them are destroying the teaching profession. We’ve heard about teaching to the test for years now and its impact on students, but Mountaineer teachers gave Spellings an earful on its long-term impact for teachers.
So what does this all mean? For years now, Eduflack has been saying that reauthorization of NCLB (with improvements) only comes when Main Street USA buys into it. Credit to Spellings for trying to do just that, but it may be a day late and a dollar short. The time to promote the value and impact of NCLB was two or three years ago, when its impact was just coming to light. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education froze, fearful of IG investigations and such. For the past 18 months, NCLB opposition has been banging and banging and banging away on the law, throwing a bright light on every flaw, blemish, and problem. And that light hasn’t dimmed,
Whatever the name, whatever the logo, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act needs to be reauthorized. Isn’t it time we look at the good of NCLB and preserve those benefits, while identifying the shortcomings and building real, meaningful solutions that can make up those gaps and improve the law?
NCLB or its offspring should be seen as a benefit for states, not as an overwhelming obstacle that hinders states from boosting student achievement across all demographics. With its investment in PD, it should be seen as a boon for teachers, not a destroyer of morale. It should be about what the feds can do to improve state and local public education. And at the end of it all, isn’t it supposed to be about student learning?
NEA
Mis-assessing Teacher Assessment
How, exactly, do you grade a teacher? For years now, the education community has debated the value of measuring teachers based on student achievement. The concept is a simple one — teachers succeed when kids achieve. Students score well on district, state, or national assessments, and the teachers are effective. Good teaching aligns with student achievement.
In Polk County, Florida, policymakers decided to take it a step further by requiring an additional way to rate teacher achievement beyond student performance on standardized tests. The result? Use teacher-determined student grades to grade our teachers.
Huh? Let Eduflack get this straight. Teachers are evaluated based on student classroom grades. Teachers hand out those grades. So “A” teachers just need to give their students As. “C” teachers are those foolish enough to give their students C grades. And let’s not even talk about those “F” teachers.
In Florida, teachers seem to be taking issue with this scheme because they don’t have control over the students they receive. Teachers with a significant number of at-risk students run a higher risk of failure than those teaching honors classes. But shouldn’t we have a greater concern?
If this is the path our collective thinking is headed down, then we clearly don’t understand assessment, its intention, or its benefit. We wouldn’t dream of letting students grade their own assessment tests, would we? Is this really that different? Grading teachers on the subjective grades they hand out? What teacher would ink in that C or D for an underperforming student? This heads toward social promotion and grading on a curve, only on steroids.
What’s next? Licensing doctors based on customer satisfaction surveys, instead of board scores? Pilot’s licenses based on high scores on the latest PS3 game?
In the perfect world, assessments are scientifically based and replicable. We expect it to be third-party administered. We need to understand both the inputs and the outcomes, recognizing that we are assessed by our performance. We show what we know. We demonstrate learning and our ability to use it.
We want to assess our kids to ensure they are learning what they need to to continue to succeed in school. We assess them to ensure they are gaining the building blocks to achieve in life. ANd we are looking to assess teaches to know that they are teaching our kids the right things. We want effective teachers. And good teachers want to make sure their colleagues are effective as well.
Florida policymakers mean well. They are seeking to reward teachers with performance-based bonuses, and they need to find an effective way to measure that performance. But good intentions don’t make good policy. Instead of looking at the alphabet grades of students, Florida administrators might be better off looking at recommendations like the NCLB Commission’s effective teacher criteria or the legislation proposed by Coleman, Lieberman, and company last year on effective teaching.
What message do we send about student assessment issues when we communicate such a poor message on effective teacher evaluation? If we expect our teachers to get the job done, we should know what to look for. We shouldn’t just know it when we see it. Effective teaching can be both quantified and qualified. And if legislators don’t know how to do it, I’m sure the AFT can provide them some counsel.
“One of These Stories Doesn’t Belong … “
Any devoted student of Sesame Street knows the segment — “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn’t belong.” We used it to differentiate shapes or to separate the dogs from the cats. Who knew it would come in handy with regard to recent NCLB commentary in two of the top papers in the nation.
So let’s look at those three articles. First we have an editorial in the Aug. 7 Washington Post calling for reauthorization of NCLB, with a particular focus on Congressman George Miller’s recent comments of his push to improve NCLB. Second, we have an editorial in USA Today the day before, also calling for the reauthorization of NCLB and support for increased accountability in our public schools system. And finally, we have NEA President Reg’s Weaver’s response in USA Today, where he claims our students are worse off today than they were five years ago when NCLB was signed into law. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/opposing-view-k.html?csp=34
Obviously, Weaver’s sentiments are not like the others. Surprisingly, both USA Today and WaPo have written articles recently about some of the shortcomings of NCLB. Both entered into their commentaries with their eyes wide open, knowing the strengths and weaknesses. And both came away calling for a continuation of the law, recognizing the long-term benefit of increased accountability and a commitment to boosting student achievement across the board.
The past few months have provided all involved in education reform the opportunity to identify ways to strengthen NCLB. How can we make assessment more meaningful? How do we cultivate and support effective teachers? How do we ensure our kids are leaving school with the skills they need to succeed in life? How do we truly improve our K-12 system?
All good questions. All questions that deserve strong public debate and meaningful consideration by key stakeholders. And all questions that should be front and center when communicating on the needs of NCLB 2.0.
Yet, despite these needed discussions, Weaver decided to play the same ole record of opposition. He says school administrators are saying teaching science is a waste of time, which is laughable since science assessments will be introduced nationally next year, joining our reading and math tests. We’re giving subjects other than math and reading short shrift, he says, at a time when states and school districts are investing major energies into STEM education efforts and relevant high school instruction. And then the king of urban legends — our focus on student achievement doesn’t improve student learning.
Some rhetoric just gets stale before its time, and that is definitely the case here. Weaver represents nearly 3 million teachers across the nation. Those teachers deserve better. They deserve more. They deserve a singular focus on how they can help improve NCLB, improve the quality of teaching in the United States, and improve the professionalism of the profession. That only happens when you are committed to improve, and when you are committed to have that improvement measured, analyzed, and shared across the industry. Accountability is the key to all.
Instead of fretting and grousing about a law passed five years ago, NEA should be focused on improvements that benefit their teachers and benefit their schools. Weaver should be talking about how NEA would want to see teachers evaluated and how best to tie student achievement to teacher effectiveness. The rhetorical focus should be on what can and should happen, not on what did or did not happen.
One of these things clearly doesn’t belong. Weaver is trying to rehash the educational skirmishes of 2001 that NEA and its breathren lost. USA Today and WaPo are talking about moving forward and improving a well-intentioned law. The latter is the only way we can get to the sunny days of NCLB 2.0 Street.
So let’s look at those three articles. First we have an editorial in the Aug. 7 Washington Post calling for reauthorization of NCLB, with a particular focus on Congressman George Miller’s recent comments of his push to improve NCLB. Second, we have an editorial in USA Today the day before, also calling for the reauthorization of NCLB and support for increased accountability in our public schools system. And finally, we have NEA President Reg’s Weaver’s response in USA Today, where he claims our students are worse off today than they were five years ago when NCLB was signed into law. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/opposing-view-k.html?csp=34
Obviously, Weaver’s sentiments are not like the others. Surprisingly, both USA Today and WaPo have written articles recently about some of the shortcomings of NCLB. Both entered into their commentaries with their eyes wide open, knowing the strengths and weaknesses. And both came away calling for a continuation of the law, recognizing the long-term benefit of increased accountability and a commitment to boosting student achievement across the board.
The past few months have provided all involved in education reform the opportunity to identify ways to strengthen NCLB. How can we make assessment more meaningful? How do we cultivate and support effective teachers? How do we ensure our kids are leaving school with the skills they need to succeed in life? How do we truly improve our K-12 system?
All good questions. All questions that deserve strong public debate and meaningful consideration by key stakeholders. And all questions that should be front and center when communicating on the needs of NCLB 2.0.
Yet, despite these needed discussions, Weaver decided to play the same ole record of opposition. He says school administrators are saying teaching science is a waste of time, which is laughable since science assessments will be introduced nationally next year, joining our reading and math tests. We’re giving subjects other than math and reading short shrift, he says, at a time when states and school districts are investing major energies into STEM education efforts and relevant high school instruction. And then the king of urban legends — our focus on student achievement doesn’t improve student learning.
Some rhetoric just gets stale before its time, and that is definitely the case here. Weaver represents nearly 3 million teachers across the nation. Those teachers deserve better. They deserve more. They deserve a singular focus on how they can help improve NCLB, improve the quality of teaching in the United States, and improve the professionalism of the profession. That only happens when you are committed to improve, and when you are committed to have that improvement measured, analyzed, and shared across the industry. Accountability is the key to all.
Instead of fretting and grousing about a law passed five years ago, NEA should be focused on improvements that benefit their teachers and benefit their schools. Weaver should be talking about how NEA would want to see teachers evaluated and how best to tie student achievement to teacher effectiveness. The rhetorical focus should be on what can and should happen, not on what did or did not happen.
One of these things clearly doesn’t belong. Weaver is trying to rehash the educational skirmishes of 2001 that NEA and its breathren lost. USA Today and WaPo are talking about moving forward and improving a well-intentioned law. The latter is the only way we can get to the sunny days of NCLB 2.0 Street.
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.
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.
How Not to Make Friends
When Eduflack used to work on Capitol Hill, he was all too knowledgeable about how organizational “score cards” worked. Cast one vote, and the League of Conservation Voters would give you a perfect score. Cast another vote, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses would quickly be investing in the district, working to get your opponent elected.
The one constant in all of this — scorecards were based on votes. The only way to effectively “score” a congressman or senator was the voting record. Yays and nays. No points for abstentions or missed votes. And a quick check of the Congressional Record verified any and all scores.
The National Education Association, though, has decided to change the dynamic. For an organization that seemed almost devoted to protecting the status quo, they are charting new territory in the lobbying front. Earlier this week, it was revealed that NEA is now threatening poor scores on those congressmen who fail to co-sponsor NEA-supported amendments to NCLB reauthorization. Kudos to DFER (www.dfer.org) for shining some sunlight on this situation.
Believe it or not, Eduflack hates to criticize the NEA. Too often, we attack the organization, and some see it as an attack on teachers themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve said it many times — teaching is one of the toughest assignments out there. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and we struggle to bring the profession the respect and recognition it deserves. And at the end of the day, even the most successful curricular program will fail without a good teacher. An effective teacher should be untouchable.
Unfortunately, the NEA often acts like a political monolith, and not like the membership organization for millions of public school teachers that it is. By changing the game, and judging members of Congress based on their co-sponsorships, the NEA is doing a significant disservice to its rank-and-file members. What is NEA saying? Issues like family leave, safe workforce conditions, children’s health, equal protections, environmental safety, student loans, and other such policies important to teachers are now taking a backseat to amendments that will never see the light of day. We don’t even know what NCLB 2.0 will look like, and already NEA is demanding tidings at its altar.
What about those members of the Appropriations Committees, who traditionally do not co-sponsor any bills or legislation? Guess they are anti-teacher. Same goes for the leadership, that often stays out of the amendment fray. They must be against the NEA. And for those members who have an education LA who failed to get the memo who may miss the deadline, looks like they are destined for the NEA hit list.
Without question, the NEA is, and should be, a major force in the development of K-12 policy and K-12 politics. The NEA knows it has the organizational ability, the financial resources, and the grassroots power to influence elections. I, for one, had been most appreciative of the phone banks and volunteer support NEA has provided my bosses in past elections.
NEA’s strong-arming tactics, though, send the wrong message at the wrong time. Yes, NCLB is an important issue for the NEA. But it shouldn’t be the only issue. Instead of scare tactics and threats, NEA should be in the room, with sleeves rolled up, working with Miller and Kennedy and company on how to improve the law. Those improvements don’t come from the flurry of amendments that will never make it to the floor, nor do they come from state-by-state anti-NCLB lawsuits that will never be adjudicated. Improvement comes from negotiation. It comes from partnership. And it comes from a shared commitment to a common goal.
When NCLB was passed, it was heralded as a law to ensure that every child had an opportunity to succeed, both in school and in life. Some of us still believe in that goal, and are still committed to that reality. We should all throw our full efforts into improving opportunity and options for all students. And it takes hard work, not score cards or lists of signatories, to get us there.
The one constant in all of this — scorecards were based on votes. The only way to effectively “score” a congressman or senator was the voting record. Yays and nays. No points for abstentions or missed votes. And a quick check of the Congressional Record verified any and all scores.
The National Education Association, though, has decided to change the dynamic. For an organization that seemed almost devoted to protecting the status quo, they are charting new territory in the lobbying front. Earlier this week, it was revealed that NEA is now threatening poor scores on those congressmen who fail to co-sponsor NEA-supported amendments to NCLB reauthorization. Kudos to DFER (www.dfer.org) for shining some sunlight on this situation.
Believe it or not, Eduflack hates to criticize the NEA. Too often, we attack the organization, and some see it as an attack on teachers themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve said it many times — teaching is one of the toughest assignments out there. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and we struggle to bring the profession the respect and recognition it deserves. And at the end of the day, even the most successful curricular program will fail without a good teacher. An effective teacher should be untouchable.
Unfortunately, the NEA often acts like a political monolith, and not like the membership organization for millions of public school teachers that it is. By changing the game, and judging members of Congress based on their co-sponsorships, the NEA is doing a significant disservice to its rank-and-file members. What is NEA saying? Issues like family leave, safe workforce conditions, children’s health, equal protections, environmental safety, student loans, and other such policies important to teachers are now taking a backseat to amendments that will never see the light of day. We don’t even know what NCLB 2.0 will look like, and already NEA is demanding tidings at its altar.
What about those members of the Appropriations Committees, who traditionally do not co-sponsor any bills or legislation? Guess they are anti-teacher. Same goes for the leadership, that often stays out of the amendment fray. They must be against the NEA. And for those members who have an education LA who failed to get the memo who may miss the deadline, looks like they are destined for the NEA hit list.
Without question, the NEA is, and should be, a major force in the development of K-12 policy and K-12 politics. The NEA knows it has the organizational ability, the financial resources, and the grassroots power to influence elections. I, for one, had been most appreciative of the phone banks and volunteer support NEA has provided my bosses in past elections.
NEA’s strong-arming tactics, though, send the wrong message at the wrong time. Yes, NCLB is an important issue for the NEA. But it shouldn’t be the only issue. Instead of scare tactics and threats, NEA should be in the room, with sleeves rolled up, working with Miller and Kennedy and company on how to improve the law. Those improvements don’t come from the flurry of amendments that will never make it to the floor, nor do they come from state-by-state anti-NCLB lawsuits that will never be adjudicated. Improvement comes from negotiation. It comes from partnership. And it comes from a shared commitment to a common goal.
When NCLB was passed, it was heralded as a law to ensure that every child had an opportunity to succeed, both in school and in life. Some of us still believe in that goal, and are still committed to that reality. We should all throw our full efforts into improving opportunity and options for all students. And it takes hard work, not score cards or lists of signatories, to get us there.
How Quickly We Forget
We all remember that George H.W. Bush (the First) was supposed to an education president. Convening an education summit at Eduflack’s alma mater, Bush brought governors, business leaders, and other influencers together to focus on how to improve American education as we headed into the 21st century.
Then there is Bush II, and his legacy of No Child Left Behind. Like it or not, NCLB will be remembered as the federal government’s largest investment in public education to date, and praised (or demonized) for its focus on research and results-based education.
What about that president in between? You know, that guy named Clinton. Sure, as governor of Arkansas, he was one of the primary leaders at Bush I’s U.Va. summit. But when we think of President Bill Clinton’s domestic policy successes, education doesn’t leap to mind. Instead, we think of a strong economy, a balanced budget, community policing, and other such programs.
So what about President 42 and education? Eduflack was down in Little Rock, Arkansas this week, and had to make a stop at the Clinton Presidential Library. I’m just a sucker for presidential libraries, dating back to my father’s involvement in the development of the JFK Library in Boston.
At the Clinton Center, they’ve focused on eight or so key issues that defined the Clinton Administration … and one of those issues is education. (In fact, the education alcove is larger than the section dedicated to the role of Vice President Al Gore in the eight-year administration.)
Clinton’s impact on education is defined broadly. A commitment to lifetime learning. Investments in Head Start and Healthy Start. Goals 2000 standards. School choice (with a big ole spotlight on a Checker Finn book). Hiring 100,000 new teachers. Providing 1.3 million children with a safe place after school hours. Wiring 98 percent of our nation’s classrooms with the Internet. Providing two years of college education to all students. School to work. Adult education.
I know, I know. It reads more like a grocery list that core accomplishments. Some are quantifiable, others can only be quantified by how many dollars were spent. Some are narrowly defined, others broadly. So it raises the larger question: What was the true impact of President Clinton’s education agenda?
Eduflack is treading on dangerous ground here, knowing that Eduwife worked at the U.S. Department of Education in mid-1990s and did tremendous work there, particularly in the area of parental involvement. But we have to ask the question, why have we quickly forgotten so many of these Clinton era education initiatives?
Some of it, we just take for granted. Of course our classrooms are wired. We forget that when Clinton took office in 1993, there were only 170 total Web sites on the planet. Today, some of us will visit 170 sites in the course of a work day.
Some just didn’t leave an impact. We may have hired 100,000 new teachers during the Clinton years, but we still bemoan the great teacher shortages in our schools. We may have sought to provide two years of college education to all high school graduates, but college costs continue to skyrocket and college readiness and college attainment numbers have flatlined. If everyone got those two years, would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have to make the investments it is making to get kids through high school and into postsecondary education?
And some we just don’t appreciate. Clinton supported school choice, and did so at a time when the teachers unions (those folks who helped him get elected in the first place) were strongly opposed to any change from the status quo. We take school choice and charters for granted now, but that was a major step for Clinton to take at the time. And it paved the way for W’s voucher program and the expansion of school choice under NCLB.
But Goals 2000 is perhaps the most interesting, and most neglected, piece of the Clinton education portfolio. When he left office, 49 states had bought into Goals 2000. The program stood as a real, concrete first step toward national education standards. What had long been a third rail in education policy had been doggedly pursued by Richard Riley, Mike Cohen, and others, with tangible successes. Without it, who knows if we would even be talking about a national standard for Algebra II (as Achieve has put in place) or comprehensive standards as discussed by NGA, CCSSO, and others.
Ultimately, though, the easiest answer to why so much has been forgotten is impact. As we look at the Clinton agenda, we lose track of many of these initiatives because they seem to place process over results. Yes, the issues and the dollars behind them are impressive. But how has it improved student achievement? How did it boost teacher quality? How did it truly impact K-12 classrooms in schools across the nation?
Instead of answering these questions, we simply moved on. We set aside Goals 2000 and Clinton-era school choice and such so we could focus on NCLB, Reading First, and HQT. Out with the old, in with the new. Instead of building on successes and momentum, the Clinton/Riley agenda was put in storage, waiting to be rediscovered by historians in the decades to come.
Not every president is going to be an education president. And not every president should be. The needs and focus of the nation change from administration to administration. But if we are going to urge our schools to direct their attentions to long-term improvements and longitudinal evaluations, maybe we should consider the same in our federal policies. No, we shouldn’t accept previous efforts blindly, without questioning them or looking for ways to improve them. But with changes in administration — whether it be at the school, district, state, or federal level — shouldn’t we build on the forward progress and financial investments of our predecessors?
Then there is Bush II, and his legacy of No Child Left Behind. Like it or not, NCLB will be remembered as the federal government’s largest investment in public education to date, and praised (or demonized) for its focus on research and results-based education.
What about that president in between? You know, that guy named Clinton. Sure, as governor of Arkansas, he was one of the primary leaders at Bush I’s U.Va. summit. But when we think of President Bill Clinton’s domestic policy successes, education doesn’t leap to mind. Instead, we think of a strong economy, a balanced budget, community policing, and other such programs.
So what about President 42 and education? Eduflack was down in Little Rock, Arkansas this week, and had to make a stop at the Clinton Presidential Library. I’m just a sucker for presidential libraries, dating back to my father’s involvement in the development of the JFK Library in Boston.
At the Clinton Center, they’ve focused on eight or so key issues that defined the Clinton Administration … and one of those issues is education. (In fact, the education alcove is larger than the section dedicated to the role of Vice President Al Gore in the eight-year administration.)
Clinton’s impact on education is defined broadly. A commitment to lifetime learning. Investments in Head Start and Healthy Start. Goals 2000 standards. School choice (with a big ole spotlight on a Checker Finn book). Hiring 100,000 new teachers. Providing 1.3 million children with a safe place after school hours. Wiring 98 percent of our nation’s classrooms with the Internet. Providing two years of college education to all students. School to work. Adult education.
I know, I know. It reads more like a grocery list that core accomplishments. Some are quantifiable, others can only be quantified by how many dollars were spent. Some are narrowly defined, others broadly. So it raises the larger question: What was the true impact of President Clinton’s education agenda?
Eduflack is treading on dangerous ground here, knowing that Eduwife worked at the U.S. Department of Education in mid-1990s and did tremendous work there, particularly in the area of parental involvement. But we have to ask the question, why have we quickly forgotten so many of these Clinton era education initiatives?
Some of it, we just take for granted. Of course our classrooms are wired. We forget that when Clinton took office in 1993, there were only 170 total Web sites on the planet. Today, some of us will visit 170 sites in the course of a work day.
Some just didn’t leave an impact. We may have hired 100,000 new teachers during the Clinton years, but we still bemoan the great teacher shortages in our schools. We may have sought to provide two years of college education to all high school graduates, but college costs continue to skyrocket and college readiness and college attainment numbers have flatlined. If everyone got those two years, would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have to make the investments it is making to get kids through high school and into postsecondary education?
And some we just don’t appreciate. Clinton supported school choice, and did so at a time when the teachers unions (those folks who helped him get elected in the first place) were strongly opposed to any change from the status quo. We take school choice and charters for granted now, but that was a major step for Clinton to take at the time. And it paved the way for W’s voucher program and the expansion of school choice under NCLB.
But Goals 2000 is perhaps the most interesting, and most neglected, piece of the Clinton education portfolio. When he left office, 49 states had bought into Goals 2000. The program stood as a real, concrete first step toward national education standards. What had long been a third rail in education policy had been doggedly pursued by Richard Riley, Mike Cohen, and others, with tangible successes. Without it, who knows if we would even be talking about a national standard for Algebra II (as Achieve has put in place) or comprehensive standards as discussed by NGA, CCSSO, and others.
Ultimately, though, the easiest answer to why so much has been forgotten is impact. As we look at the Clinton agenda, we lose track of many of these initiatives because they seem to place process over results. Yes, the issues and the dollars behind them are impressive. But how has it improved student achievement? How did it boost teacher quality? How did it truly impact K-12 classrooms in schools across the nation?
Instead of answering these questions, we simply moved on. We set aside Goals 2000 and Clinton-era school choice and such so we could focus on NCLB, Reading First, and HQT. Out with the old, in with the new. Instead of building on successes and momentum, the Clinton/Riley agenda was put in storage, waiting to be rediscovered by historians in the decades to come.
Not every president is going to be an education president. And not every president should be. The needs and focus of the nation change from administration to administration. But if we are going to urge our schools to direct their attentions to long-term improvements and longitudinal evaluations, maybe we should consider the same in our federal policies. No, we shouldn’t accept previous efforts blindly, without questioning them or looking for ways to improve them. But with changes in administration — whether it be at the school, district, state, or federal level — shouldn’t we build on the forward progress and financial investments of our predecessors?
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 