Obama

“An Army of Teachers”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, HQT, NEA, Obama

It should be no surprise that there was little real discussion of K-12 education at this week’s Democratic convention.  As we’re seeing in polls, education simply isn’t an issue on which people cast their national vote.  It isn’t a red-meat topic to rally the troops and build true excitement.  Despite all of the best attempts from groups like Ed in 08, education just didn’t register this week, and isn’t expected to register next week.

Sure, there were a few veiled references to No Child Left Behind and how it has saddled our schools.  Many speakers talked about the need for more student loans.  But other than a few sentences in former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner’s speech and in current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s remarks, education was an also-ran issue.
But last night, Barack Obama upped the ante.  Yes, his spoke globally on a range of issues, focusing mainly on the economy and on foreign policy.  Education, though, also popped up in his speech.  The most interesting line, perhaps, was his notion that, as president, he would recruit a “new army of teachers” for our schools.
We all have heard the stories about how more than half of all teachers will be retiring over the next five years.  We know that there is a teacher “shortage” out there, particularly in subjects such as math and science.  And we’ve seen the stories about school districts recruiting for new teachers outside of their state and even outside of the United States.  But it is a bold statement to say that the federal government is soon going to get into the business of identifying and recruiting a new “army of teachers.”
At a Jobs for the Future conference last fall, the Gates Foundation’s education director, Vicki Phillips, spoke of the Foundation’s need to get into the human capital business.  Few noticed the line, but it left a lasting impact on Eduflack.  Imagine the impact on teacher recruitment if the Gates Foundation put its money and its willpower behind the teacher recruitment, bringing individuals into the fold who can lead the new classrooms of the 21st century.  It was an interesting idea, an idea that hasn’t been fleshed out since Phillips tossed it into the pool.
Getting the federal government — and, thus, the U.S. Department of Education — makes it just a little more interesting.  Imagine an assistant secretary for teacher recruitment, leading an office that is looking at new incentives and alternative certifications and performance pay and teachers at charter schools.  I know I am jumping to conclusions here, but it is an interesting thought that the feds could soon be in the teacher recruitment business.
Yes, the chance if far greater that this is a line that will soon be forgotten and never adopted into policy.  In an Obama Administration, even if it moved forward, it could simply be an initiative run by the National Education Association, looking so much like efforts that have come before it.  
Or it could just be a bold way to truly improve education, putting everything on the table and making clear that the teacher in front of the classroom is the most important component to student achievement.  It could redefine how we think of a qualified, effective teacher.  And it could re-energize a new generation to become classroom teachers.

Some Ed Reccs for Senator Obama

Eduflack high-stakes testing, HQT, NCLB, Obama, Roy Romer

Now that he is all but the official Democratic presidential nominee, it is time for Senator Barack Obama to start putting out some real ideas — real policies — that complement his vision for the future.  For most Democrats, that means a clear education policy, one that goes from pre-natal to geriatric.

Unfortunately, Obama’s message of hope and opportunity doesn’t quite jive with the education (particularly K-12) mantras of hopelessness and obstacles.  How do we restore hope for education reform in an industry that has been paralyzed by the fear of change?

More than a year ago, Eduflack offered some recommendations to the Democratic candidates running for president on how they can focus on education.  Since then, we’ve seen Ed in 08 and others try to do the same.  What’s funny is how wrong I was in March of 2007.  I thought it was a gimme that the Democrats would focus on education, seeing it as a great equalizer and a bridge to a stronger economy and better jobs.  How wrong I was!  Even the talking snowman has gotten more media play than the party’s education ideas.

But let’s take a second to look back on Eduflack’s specific recommendations, knowing full well they are just as strong and pertinent today as they were a year ago:

1.  We all must commit to improve our schools.  We cannot and should not simply protect the status quo.  That means having hard conversations with the teachers unions and pushing them and school administrators to make hard decisions.  Sacrifices today can yield improvements tomorrow. 

2. Additional funding does not directly result in improved achievement.  For every carrot, there is a stick.  If we are to increase NCLB spending (and we should, particularly to get effective teachers in the classroom), we need to ensure that such funding increases are focused on proven programs, improved assessments, and effective interventions.  As a nation, we will pay more if we see the results.

3. National standards level the playing field.  Regardless of who controls Congress or the White House, no one should be afraid of national education standards.  Such standards offer a promise of equity in all of our schools.  For those traditional blue states, and the urban centers located in them, national standards ensure that all students, regardless of their hometown, race, or socioeconomic status, are taught and measured compared to every other student in the country.  That equal field only helps when it comes to college, to jobs, and to life.

4. The time has come for Democrats to push the unions.  Can anyone honestly say that our schools wouldn’t benefit from teacher improvement.  HQT provisions in NCLB are fine, but the NCLB Commission got it right — we need to focus on effective teachers, not just qualified ones.  Teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there, but intellectually and emotionally.  We need to do everything possible to support those teachers on the front lines.  But we also need to recognize that not everyone is cut out for the challenge.  Our schools need an assessment/improvement/mentoring model for all teachers.  Good teachers will thrive.  Those not destined to teach can move on with their professional lives.

5. Education reform is a shared responsibility.  Meaningful change is not just left to the teachers or the national education organizations.  Just as Hillary Clinton wrote about it taking a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to educate one.  Improving our schools requires teamwork.  Teachers and parents, business and community leaders, local, state, and federal officials all play a role in identifying, implementing, and assessing meaningful, results-based reform.  Shared responsibility results in shared success.

I maintain that all of these are still cogent, winning issues for Obama.  Case in point, Obama’s previous endorsement of teacher merit pay.  It is a strong idea, and one that can have an immediate impact on teacher and instructional quality in the schools.  It is an idea that resonates with most parents, and means something to local decisionmakers.  And it is a concept that the unions — particularly the NEA — greatly oppose.  We all recognize that Obama and the teachers unions are allies.  But performance pay can be one of those flag-in-the-sand moments that demonstrates Obama’s independence and the priority of kids in his education policy.

But it all seems to loop back around to national standards.  The National Governors Association and CCSSO have long been champions of a the concept.  This week, the National Association of Secondary School Principals threw its collective weight behind the issue as well.  And Obama endorser Roy Romer has been carrying the banner for it over at Ed in 08. 

Imagine the rhetorical impact national standards could have coming out of Obama’s mouth.  The opportunity that all U.S. students, regardless of their home state, are learning and achieving together.  The belief that the nation is stronger academically, and can measure it, because of national standards.  The elimination of have and have not states, knowing that a kid in Alabama is getting the same education as a kid in Connecticut.  Imagine.

Senator Obama, it is quite easy for you to write off education policy as part of your stump speech this all.  You’ll have the endorsement of the unions.  Education has never been a strong policy concern of Senator McCain’s.  And the anti-NCLB crowds will crow a vote for a Dem is a vote against NCLB.

But as you have all year, you have the opportunity to tell us what you stand for, and not just what you speak against.  If your recent anti-NCLB remarks are coming from the heart, tell us what you will do to fix the law.  If you are concerned about high-stakes testing, let Romer and company develop a national standard that lessens the stress on our student test takers.  But please, please, please, do and stand for something.

We’ve spend far too much time in recent years talking about what’s wrong and what we’re opposed to.  We need more people — particularly our leaders — telling us what they stand for in education reform.

Mr. Weaver, Tear Down the NEA Wall

Eduflack AFT, John McCain, NCLB, NEA, Obama

After putting their money on Hillary Clinton early on in the process, it seems the national teachers unions are quickly regrouping, endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency.  The NEA (which never officially married Clinton, but clearly had bought a ring, announced that Reg Weaver is recommending the Assembly endorse Obama at next month’s convention.  (Thanks to Flypaper for pointing out Mike Antonucci’s post on this). 

Of course, the AFT had previously endorsed Clinton, has announced it “will engage in a process to prepare to make an endorsement for this fall’s general election.”  Anyone who has been around the political block knows that the AFT endorsement of Obama isn’t that far behind.  Hopefully, they’ll take the time to talk to McCain’s education team first, though.

Back in the winter, Eduflack asked what, specifically, AFT was supporting when it endorsed Hillary.  And the question is even more valid regarding today’s endorsement (or proposed endorsement) of Obama.  Is Reg Weaver endorsing Obama’s support for merit pay for teachers?  His support for Teach For America style programs?  Backing of charter schools?  Or is he endorsing the recent rhetoric attacking high-stakes testing and NCLB?  (I’ll put my money on the latter.)

I join with Obama in supporting merit pay for teachers and supporting charter schools, particularly in our inner cities.  And I was impressed when he went into the NEA and supported incentive pay, particularly when the union has been so strongly against it.  So does an endorsement of Obama mean the NEA is changing course on performance pay for teachers? 

Unfortunately, we may never know.  If yesterday’s post-primary statement from Weaver is any indication, this isn’t about Obama.  It’s about the NEA supporting the Democrats.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.  Now is the perfect time for NEA to get both candidates to put their education platform together, and let the brothers and sisters of the NEA weigh and measure both.

If we’ve learned anything from the Democratic primary, it is that hope trumps fear.  The positive far outweighs the negative.  And the high ground is far more adventageous than the mud pits.  Unfortunately, Weaver seems to have missed that point.  In calling on his nearly 3 million members to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee, Weaver says:

“You can go down any list of what public school employees believe they need to truly help every child be successful, and you’ll see that Senator Obama supports that list and that Senator McCain not only opposes it, but has probably already voted against it.”

It’s unfortunate that the NEA can’t support Obama without attacking John McCain.  The NEA has effectively sat itself on the bench for the past eight years on federal education policy, deciding it was easier to shout into the wind than to look for some middle ground with the current Administraton.  If the Bush Administration wasn’t going to use the NEA’s ball, then the NEA just wasn’t going to play.  And it looks like they are drawing the same line again this year.

I’m all for effective rhetoric, and during campaign times, I’ve been accused of being a little vitriolic.  (For the record, I worked, successfully, on behalf for Democratic candidates, and have a keener than keen appreciation for the value of an NEA or AFT endorsement.)  But when the NEA says that McCain has already voted against everything a child needs to be successful, they do the union, its members, and the students they teach a great disservice.

The NEA endorsement will go to the Democrat.  We all know that.  But let’s make it about the hopes, policies, and positions he stands for.  It is an endorsement, and shouldn’t be an endorsement by rejection of the other guy.

No one has ever accused John McCain of being an opponent of education.  If anything, now is the time for McCain to start formulating a real plan on federal education policy and demonstrate his commitment to reform and school improvement.  He may not get the union endorsement, but that doesn’t mean he can’t get the votes of teachers. 

Mr. Weaver, how about letting McCain speak to the collected membership and make an educated choice? 

Who’s on Deck for EdSec?

Eduflack Broad Prize, Chancellor Klein, John McCain, NCLB, Obama

This month, Washingtonian Magazine did a two-page spread on who Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would select for their Cabinet, should they take ownership of the big desk in the Oval Office.  Lots of interesting names to ponder and fuel cocktail party discussion. 

But one thing troubled Eduflack greatly.  There is no mention of the U.S. Department of Education.  After all of the money and attention spread by Ed in 08.  After the dogged pursuit of the issue by Richard Whitmire and EWA.  No mention of who would lead federal education in this NCLB 2.5, merit pay, voucher/charter whack-a-day world.

So Eduflack is going to take it upon himself to fill the Washingtonian’s holes.  Let’s set aside the campaign advisors that Alexander Russo so kindly provides on his Campaign 08 wiki.  Let’s forget the whispers Eduflack has heard over the last year, mentioning everyone from UFT/AFT Randi Weingarten to Eduwonk Andy Rotherham to even NLNS CEO Jon Schnur.  All good fun, yes, but who do we really think will be heading ED in a Democratic administration?

Eduflack’s narrowed his choice down to a top three … and a dark horse.

Candidate A – NC Gov. Mike Easley.  Gov. Easley is one of the top education governors out there.  He gets it, and speaks passionately about key issues, particularly school-to-work concerns.  Sure, he is a lawyer by trade, but not everyone is perfect.  One could see him in the Secretary Riley model, a strong southern governor who knows how to lead and motivate.  The downside, as a NC governor, he will always be in Jim Hunt’s shadow on education issues.  And he has endorsed Hillary in advance of the NC primary, which could hurt him with Obama later on.

Candidate B — Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.  Cut from the same cloth as Easley, Granholm is smart, articulate, and a true motivator.  She’s also made major education moves in Michigan, from PreK programs to instituting a comprehensive reform to high school graduation requirements.   The downside, we still time to see the effectiveness of her reforms and Michigan’s test numbers are still waiting to see the Granholm bounce.

Candidate C — NYC Chancellor Joel Klein.  He has the results, he has the national recognition, and he is ripe for a new challenge.  What more is there to do in NYC.  He’s won the Broad Prize and test scores are up.  NYC is now the model for urban reform.  Let’s see what he can do on the national stage under a reauthorized NCLB.  The downside, another lawyer who may try to run ED like he ran his department at Justice.  Who at ED is up for that?

The Darkhorse — Rep. George Miller.  We seem to look to governors to serve as EdSec.  Just look at Lamar Alexander and Richard Riley.  Many would say the superintendent experiment with Rod Paige didn’t work (Eduflack doesn’t believe that.  In fact, Eduflack finds Paige to be one of the brightest, thoughtful educators he has had the pleasure of working with (post ED).  It’s unfortunate that DC saw an overly scripted EdSec, courtesy of DPC, and not the real and true Paige.  Paige has gotten a raw deal these past few years, in my opinion).  NCLB needs reauthorization.  ED needs someone who understands Congress.  Who better than a co-author of the original NCLB law, an ed reform champion, and one who has stood up to the status quo.  Let’s give the keys to Miller and let him enforce the spirit of the law he helped write in 2001.  The downside, of course, is why would he want to give up the Ed Committee Chairmanship to run a tough agency during a difficult time?

Let’s see Washingtonian and the whispering class chew on these names for a while, and see what they think.  If not these four, then who? 

And don’t worry, Senator McCain, Eduflack has a few names for you as well.  As you confer with Lisa Graham Keegan on ed issues, try floating names like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (if you don’t choose him for VP) or Congressman Buck McKeon.  Heck, in another year, Paul Vallas may be ready for another challenge too.  He could be McCain’s token Democrat in the Cabinet.

The Next Education President?

Eduflack AFT, John McCain, NCLB, Obama, Presidential campaign

Does a personal endorsement of a presidential candidate matter?  Last week, Eduflack suggested that college presidents should play a more active role in endorsing political candidates, lending their support to those who can best help grow the institution, support the students, and improve the quality and access to postsecondary education.

This week, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (MA) threw his support to Barack Obama, symbolically passing the torch from JFK to the junior senator from Illinois.  Much has been written on the issue, particularly on whether Obama or Bill Clinton is more Kennedy-esque.  It raises another question though.  Is Senator Kennedy also endorsing his preference for the next “education president?”

After all, Kennedy has worked with both Obama and Hillary Clinton on his Senate Education Committee these past three years.  He’s seen them both in action.  They’ve both introduced legislation that has been heard before his committee.  He’s campaigned for both of them in their respective Senate races.  He must know more about their education policy stances than the average bear, no?

Yes, Clinton has already gained the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers.  They are strong in New York City, strong in New York State.  Obama, meanwhile, spent part of his summer talking about merit pay for teachers, and issue the unions have resisted.  So an AFT endorsement for Clinton, particularly last year when all assumed the race would be over by now in a Clinton blowout, was to be expected.

During the past month, Obama has picked up the endorsement of both Kennedy and House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA).  That’s a powerful statement to the education community.  Kennedy and Miller are likely the leaders who will shepherd NCLB’s successor in 2009 (assuming we don’t heed the President’s call and reauthorize this election year).  As chairmen of their respective committees, they speak for education policy in the U.S. Congress, and have for some time.  And they have both stood up to say Obama is their guy.  That means something, particularly with the policy community and the education blob here in our nation’s capital.

What about the Republicans?  By CongressDaily’s latest count, House Education Chairman Buck McKeon (CA) has lent his support to Mitt Romney.  Based on McKeon’s commitment to education reform issues, that endorsement says a great deal about the possibilities of the former Massachusetts governor.  On the Senate side, Education Chairman Mike Enzi is still in the uncommitted category.  Maybe he is waiting on Romney or John McCain to talk about the importance of rural education for his Wyoming constituents.

What does it all mean?  Will we see an Obama education platform in the fall that shows Kennedy and Miller’s full fingerprints?  That certainly wouldn’t be a bad thing for teachers and kids across the country.  What about a Romney education platform that shows the imprimatur of the school improvement-minded McKeon?  It sure beats past GOP platforms calling for the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.

Either way, while the candidates may not be talking in public much about education issues, these endorsements signal the candidates are listening to the right people and are saying some of the right things behind closed doors.  And that is why such personal endorsements are important.  None of us know what an Obama or a Romney Education Department would look like.  But if they are working in partnership with Kennedy or McKeon, we have some understanding of — and some hope for — what the future of federal education policy may hold.  

NCLB: The Great Debate?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign, Reading First

We’re seven months from the presidential primaries.  We’re 16 months from the 2008 presidential election.  So it only makes sense that last night was the “first” Democratic presidential debate.  (Those other three or four were just pre-season, I suppose).  Last night’s questions came in from “regular folks” through YouTube.  And if you believe Ed in ’08’s numbers, Of the nearly 3,000 questions that were submitted, 306 of them were about education. 


During the two-hour debate, one education-focused question was actually raised.  The loaded softball in question — “Would you scrap or revise the No Child Left Behind program?”  It’s a wonder CNN found time for it, what with the snowman concerned about global warming and all.


Eduflack will forget, for a second, that the questioner didn’t leave the candidates the option to stand up for the law, particularly since half the folks on the stage voted FOR it back in 2002.  And we’ll try to ignore the fact that only three candidates were able to answer the question, and that the one that defended the law (Chris Dodd) wasn’t actually asked to chime in (and was almost prevented from answering).


After listening to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson take up most of the “education time,” I must say I am truly disenchanted by the governor from the Land of Enchantment.  Either he doesn’t understand NCLB or he is distorting it for his own purposes.  Either way, it demonstrates how far Spellings & Co. need to go to effectively market and promote the federal education law.  ED is losing the PR battle on NCLB, and they continue to let the law’s critics define the terms of debate.  Last night was the perfect example. 

So how exactly did Richardson answer the NCLB question?  He raised four key points.  First, he attacked NCLB for taking funding away from low-performing districts and schools.  What?  If anything, NCLB — through SES, Reading First, and other initiatives — is doing the opposite.  It is putting additional funding in those schools that need it the most.  But Richardson seems to have bought into the status quo’s red herring that NCLB is a punitive tool only.

Second, he calls for a minimum teacher salary of $40,000.  I won’t quibble with him on this.  Effective teachers should be far better paid than they are now.  But with all of the crowing that NCLB has stripped local control from what was perceived as a local issue, is he honestly suggesting the federal government should get involved in setting teacher pay scales for school districts?  How does that work with current collective bargaining agreements?

Third, he said we need to focus on science and math and do what is needed to unlock the minds of those students who are struggling in those subjects.  Hear, hear!  NCLB does that, and talk of NCLB 2.0 calls for greater investment and attention to STEM issues.  I would ask though, governor, how you propose to identify the children whose minds are in need of unlocking without the strong assessments called for under NCLB?  We need strong, research-based assessments to ensure all students are learning the skills they need to succeed after they leave the schoolhouse doors.

And the final point?  This closer that is supposed to sum up his position and make the strongest case possible?  We need more music, dancing, and sculpture classes in our schools.  Pardon me as I shake the bewilderment from my head.  On a daily basis, we have members of Congress seeking to slash spending for reading — a non-negotiable educational building block — and the good governor wants to make sure we’re teaching Pottery Wheel 101?

If we’re going to debate education, and I mean truly debate education, let’s focus on the real issues of NCLB.  Let’s hear where the candidates stand on research-based instruction.  On the need for effective teaching.  On the benefits of continuous assessment and instructional improvement.  On data collection.  On content-rich professional development.  And on the need for measurable, demonstrable student achievement, the sort of achievement that ensures every child has the chance to succeed in school and in life.  That would be a debate I’d pay to see, and that would be one that would actually educate the voters and the Congress on educational priorities.

There was one bright spot to the sad two minutes devoted to education last night.  As Senators Clinton and Obama looked the other way on the question, Chris Dodd bravely stated, “Accountability is very important.”  Couldn’t have said it any better, Senator.  I just hope your colleagues on the rostrum heard you.
 

Pundits Vs. Analysts on Ed

Eduflack early childhood education, High School, HQT, national standards, NCLB, NEA, Obama, Presidential campaign, STEM

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.

Leaving a Lasting Ed Footprint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Pay Attention to Me!”

Eduflack NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If a Tree Falls in The Ed Forest …

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign, SBRR

If a press release is issued — one that is pithy and interesting and chock full of new ideas and meaningful policies — but is not reported on by the media, was it ever really released?  Does such an announcement make its way into the public space if its intended audience (the media) choose to ignore it?

Over at www.eduwonk.com, Mike Goldstein asks the question, reflecting on the relatively lackluster announcements that have come from the Democratic candidates for president, both at the NEA Convention and in general.

Anyone who expected real news to come out of an NEA Convention clearly has never attended one.  Between all of the “brother this” and “sister thats,” there is rarely a moment to talk about true reforms and improvement.  The Democratic candidates who paid homage before the House of Reg did so with one main object in mind — do no harm.  They went in and threw red meat to the lions — teachers deserve more pay, testing is unfair, etc., etc.  Hardly the action items deserving coverage in a weekly reader, yet alone a national newspaper. 

The rare exceptions — Obama and Huckabee.  Obama followed a pattern he has adopted in previous union visits, speaking truth to power and discussing issues that don’t make the top five approved texts with the membership.  At NEA, he spoke of equity pay, a topic NEA has fought for decades, and a topic that virtually every parent, community leader, and taxpayer believes in.  The same sort of merit pay systems that almost every other white collar job is governed by.  Obama got the headlines because he spoke on a taboo topic (or taboo for the audience) and he did so with strength and passion.  The challenge will be what he does with it next.  Was it rhetoric for the day, or was it policy?

As for Huckabee, he get the “A” just for showing up.  No one expects Republicans to come to the House of Reg.  After all, the NEA always endorses Democrats.  They lend all of their organizational might, fundraising, phonebanks, GOTV activities, et al to the Democratic candidate.  But that didn’t deter Huckabee for attending, and for speaking his mind.  In doing so, he established that education is an important issue for him, and he is willing to work with all parties to bring real reform forward.  Republican or Democrat, every governor works with teachers unions.  Huckabee reminded the NEA of that, and reminded them that he was fair to them all those years in Arkansas.

But back to Eduwonk’s question at hand — when do press releases get the play they deserve?  Goldstein hypothesizes they must be edgy and quotable.  Let me tell you, Eduflack has written thousands of press releases over the years.  Most have made their way into the news coverage; some have fallen flat.  And of those that have fallen flat, most have been quotable.  And some have even been edgy (or as edgy as the topic may allow).  So what was the missing ingredient?

If our presidential candidates, our education organizations, our influencers, and just about anyone else hoping to find a voice in the education reform forest wants to be heard via press release, they need to remember a few things:
* Keep it short.  Nothing that can be said in a page is any better in three or four pages.
* Keep it timely.  Relate it to news of the day or issues that you know the media is reporting on.
* Know your target.  Be sure you are sending it to the right person, and you understand the issues and topics that reporter has written or broadcast on in the past.
* Grab attention.  A great quote, a new statistic, or even a new spin on an old issue is likely to gain a second look from the recipient.
* Follow up.  Simply hitting send on the email program does not result in effective dissemination.  You need to follow up with the reporters you are hoping to entice with the story.
* Say something.  Press releases are not the vehicles for “me too.”  If you want a reporter to take the time to skim your announcement, you better be saying something original and interesting.
* Don’t waste time.  Reporters are getting hundreds of releases a day.  Most end up in the deleted bins of their emails.  If you aren’t saying something important, don’t say it.  You don’t want a reputation for sending non-news or for wasting the time of reporters by recycling the same releases, again and again, with a new headline.  Your issue may be important to you, but if you don’t entice the reporter with the new meal, do you really expect them to get excited with leftovers?
* Know your end game.  Is the purpose coverage in the local media?  Are you softening the ground for a harder announcement in a few weeks?  Sending a trial balloon on a controversial issue?  Or just reminding the media you exist?  Any release needs to help you reach the ultimate policy or political goal.

That being said, what can today’s presidential candidates say to gain attention from the media?  Clearly, they haven’t figured out what that is yet.  Other than an early ed policy here from Hillary, and a phys-ed policy there from Richardson, a number of “me toos” on the need for more student loans, the current chattering on presidential education reform has been weighed and measured, and, quite frankly, it has been found lacking.

If Eduflack were writing for one of these presidential candidates, he would follow the Obama mantra of being bold and audacious and really take the time to leave a rhetorical mark in the education forest.  How?

Go into the NEA conference and applaud NCLB for leveling the playing field, boosting student achievement, and finally giving every student the opportunity to succeed.  Sure, more must be done to strengthen the law.  But the law is good, and the law works.  Worried about getting attacked?  Senator Kennedy’s got your back.

Call on ACE to ensure that college credits are universally transferable, and that a postsecondary credit earned at an accredited community college should be taken at value at an state or private institution.  Need some help articulating?  Just take a look at the policy Ohio has been working on.

Acknowledge that public education has changed a great deal in recent decades, and that a system that incorporates traditional public schools, charter schools, and vouchers can work, and work well, when it has the full support of the community and the school system.  The goal is a high-quality education for all students.  It shouldn’t matter who is delivering the education, as long as all of our children are getting it.  Only then will it be taxpayer money well spent.

Listen to the NCLB Commission and demand that HQT provisions be changed to include a measure of effectiveness.  A good teacher gets her students learning and prepares them for success, both in school and in life.  HQET need to recognize that.

Speak out on the need for instructionally based preK, where students learn more than just social adjustment skills.  Recognize that ELL education is a necessary component of any urban education program, and if incorporated effectively, can boost student achievement.  Demand that SES funds be used on proven methods that directly correlate to increased performance. 

And finally, plant a big ole sloppy wet kiss right on Reading First.  We know it works.  Its been proven effective.  Even RF opponents are calling for full funding of the program.  Demand that Congress stop playing politics, restore full funding for RF, and work with Congress and ED to ensure that the money is being effectively spent and that any classroom receiving even one RF dollar is implementing SBRR with fidelity.&n
bsp;

While Eduflack is unlikely to get out of a Democratic primary with an education platform like that, it is one that works, it is one that will resonate with the media and with the public, and, most importantly, it is one that will make a real difference in terms of improving student achievement.  For those 17 individuals still mixing it up for their parties’ nominations, please feel free to crib even one of these policy planks for your campaign.  I guarantee you, if positioned the right way, it can be rhetorical gold.  And it may even improve the quality of public education in the process.