Across the nation, governors and state legislatures are preparing their budgets and promoting their visions for this new year. Unfortunately, 2008 is looking like recent years. Rising obligations for healthcare and criminal justice and roads and virtually everything else. Concerns about shrinking state coffers, due in part to a slumping housing marketing and concerns for a recession. And great education reform ideas put pack in the drawer for another year, pining for the money, public support, or community need to move idea into law.
Yes, it is a sad story. But does it have to be that way? Is there a way to talk about education this time of year, without it just being tossed into the same ole education bucket again?
If we look at those issues that have a chance of making it into the game — preK, STEM, high school reform, postsecondary access — we are provided an interesting picture. Yes, they are all education issues. But each and every one of them can also be positioned as economic development issues. An investment in one or more of them can have a direct impact on jobs, increased revenues, economic investment, and community empowerment. And that’s how you move them out of the “great ideas” drawer and onto the text of the State of the State address.
For too long, we’ve talked about education for education’s sake. PreK is simply about those sweet little kids. High school reform is to keep teenagers engaged and in class. Postsecondary access is needed because we’ve sold the nation on the belief that everybody needs to go to college.
But let’s look (and talk about) this a little differently. We’re already seeing it with STEM education issues. STEM isn’t just about putting more kids in math and science classes. It is about preparing all students for 21st century jobs. It is about making a high school diploma more relevant and more in line with what employers need from their incoming workforce. It is about global competition and providing work and life skills for all students — not just those going on to teach trig or become doctors or rocket scientists.
This month, we’re sure to hear some talk in state capitols about investment in STEM education. And we’ll hear it most loudly where K-12, higher ed, and the business community are working together. Why? It’s not just an ed issue; it’s an employment issue. And with employment comes a stronger economy. And a reduced burden on the state justice and health systems. An investment in STEM affects all.
The same argument can be made for high school reform, where we are ensuring high school educations are relevant and effectively preparing all students for school career and life. With postsecondary access, we focus on the ability to enroll in the work certificate programs, community colleges, and four-year institutions that can prepare us for the careers of our dreams. Even preK, once we key in on the high-quality, results-driven programs, ensures that all young students — even those from the poorest families — develop the tools to access the pathways to those good jobs.
The era of education reform for education’s sake is over. If state-level reforms are to take hold, we need to focus on return on investment. Show that a dollar of education today will reap five dollars of increased revenue or three dollars of reduced social services costs tomorrow. The data’s there. The interest is there. We just need to bring it all together. It may seem silly, but we need to demonstrate it is relevant.
Yes, we need ed reform and we need to articulate why. And the reason is not increased test scores. That is merely a measurement to know we are doing our job. At the end of the day, we reform to improve. We improve to provide today’s students with a better education, a better job, and a better life than their parents. It may be clichéd, but it’s the truth.
PR
A Seat at the Table
Why is it so hard to reform our K-12 systems? For one, virtually everyone has an opinion on the schools (and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing). We’ve all attended schools. We know what we liked and what we didn’t. And we have thoughts on what would have made it better.
More so, education reform is an emotional process. We all know someone affected by it. Teachers, principals, support staff. But most definitely students. And if we don’t know a student affected today, we sure know one impacted yesterday or tomorrow.
Eduflack is usually up on the soapbox, advocating for inclusion when it comes to stakeholders. If we are improving the schools, we need all the help we can get. That’s why so many reform efforts include parents, community leaders, business leaders, the clergy, and just about anyone else walking through that educational village.
The good folks out at LAUSD seem to understand part of that, but skipped an entire chapter of the book. As part of his proposal to close a number of campuses out in Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa and his team reached out to teachers. They reached out to parents. They sought buy-in and support for the Mayor’s plan. They even allowed these stakeholders to vote on the plan. The LA Times has the story — http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-students2jan02,1,1342026.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true.
Forgotten in this otherwise strong public engagement strategy was the student. The students even actively sought a voice in the process. They have distinct views that impacted the plan. But at the end of the day, according to the LA Times, they were brushed aside so the “adults” could make these important decisions.
And that, my friends, is a huge communications blunder. Too often, we write off students in the reform process, believing that they don’t care, don’t know, or don’t matter. In actuality, students know far more than we give them credit for. They know how important a high school diploma is. They know they need postsecondary education. And they know a good education today results in a good job tomorrow. They get it. And they feel it more deeply than many of the other stakeholders engaged in the process. I am consistently surprised by what I hear from the average middle or high schooler in a focus group or at a public event. They get it (and sometimes understand it far better than their teachers or parents do).
Of course we don’t want to let a group of middle schoolers be the deciding vote on whether their school is to be closed next year. But they should have a seat at the table. They should be part of the process.
If we want today’s students to be the leaders of tomorrow, we need to push them and engage them and give them the opportunities to lead and to understand what public stewardship really is. They don’t get that from a pat on the head or a squeeze of a shoulder. They get it from being treated as equals and given the impressions their voice, opinions, and experiences matter.
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.
Multiple Pathways for Students … and Teachers
We all like to believe that we’re all entitled to one week in the sun. No one can dispute that last week was just such a week for Teach For America. Bookended by articles in The New York Times magazine and the Economist, TFA has been the “it” program of the week. No small feat, what with continued discussions of NCLB, merit pay, and a host of national policy shifts.
Without doubt, TFA has a growing cadre of supporters throughout the nation. As it has expanded the cities and communities in which it serves, the organization has had a demonstrable impact on the school culture, on student and teacher motivation, and, yes, on student performance. Don’t believe Eduflack? Check out the comprehensive research study Mathematica has done on the effectiveness of TFA.
Unfortunately, such attention and growth also gives birth to a healthy opposition. I’ve long told reform clients that if you don’t have such critics, you aren’t doing your job. Changing the status quo, calling on stakeholders to work harder or think smarter or do better invariably always brings forward that opposition. And TFA is no exception.
For years, those critics have been led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, perhaps the greatest defender of the status quo pedagogy of teacher education. Yes, she is a name to be reckoned with. Yes, she brings a distinguished history of good work and a commitment to public education. But sometimes, even the best take a wrong turn.
The status quoers have tried to protect teacher education for decades. The result? Our students’ test scores have been relatively flat for most of Eduflack’s lifetime. We may claim that our schools of education are churning out the best educators ever to face a classroom, but the results don’t reflect that. For too long, we’ve allowed pedagogy to substitute for results. Sure, the inputs may be great, but what out the final outcomes? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are our students better of now than they were two decades ago?
The simple answer is, of course not. Today, we are asking far more of our students than ever before. Success in 2007 requires a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree or certificate. The time when only a third of high school students went to college is over. Instead, we are demanding multiple educational pathways for our students, pathways that provide every student with a way to postsecondary education and a guide to life success.
Which takes us back to Teach For America. If we are expected to build multiple instructional pathways for our students, it only goes to reason that we are to build multiple instructional pathways for our teachers as well. There is no one way to train a teacher. If there was, we’d build that factory and have a non-stop supply of highly qualified, effective teachers for every classroom, including those in low-performing areas.
No, the challenges of our schools requires multiple ways of thinking. From looking at those schools where programs like Teach For America or Troops to Teachers reside, we know that pedagogy is the least of these classrooms’ problems. Here, many students have all but given up hope. They’ve lost faith in the school, or in the teacher, or in learning itself. For them, it isn’t about instructional approaches. It is about repairing the school culture. Returning hope. Connecting the student with the teacher and the school.
And that’s where programs like TFA excel. Success is not measured by an individual teacher or a specific cadre of corps members. Success, in the long run, comes from knowing there will always been a TFA teacher in front of that classroom, a teacher who connects with the student, inspires the student, and reconnects the student’s passion for learning.
Accomplish that, and the student achievement will come. And scientific research can prove it. If anything, Darling-Hammond and her defenders of the status quo should be seeking out more opportunities and efforts like TFA. More programs that bring hope to inner-city schools. More programs that instill a culture of learning. More programs that provide our schools with enthusiastic, driven instructors eager to lead a classroom that has long been neglected. More programs that build a future generation of leadership on the notion that no issue is more important to the success of our nation and our community than a high-quality, effective education for ALL students.
Some critics, including those at dear ole Stanford, would point to the lifespan of a TFA teacher, questioning whether two years in the classroom really makes a difference. But how different is the two-year commitment of a TFA teacher from the short lifespan of today’s traditional new teacher? TFA’s mission was never to focus on teacher retention issues — it was to provide an ongoing stream of qualified, enthusiastic, committed educators in the communities that need them the most. TFA plays that specific role extremely well, so much so that it is continually embraced by superintendents, principals, and teachers across the nation. And in reality, the studies of TFA alumni show many of them stay in the classroom, go into school administration, or assume other roles that support education and growth in the community. And isn’t that a measure of an effective educator?
In a nation looking for K-12 solutions, we need multiple answers. One just won’t do. And Teach For America is definitely one of the answers. Ask a “traditional” teacher who works with a TFAer, and they’ll tell you the same thing. Ask a family whose child is in a TFA classroom, and they’ll concur. Ask Mathematica and other researchers, and they’ll give you the proof points.
Teacher For America and its leaders should enjoy their week in the sun. The hard work begins today. Across the nation, districts and schools know TFA and programs like it work. So as the critics circle, TFA, its leadership, and its corps members need to ensure the highest quality implementation, instruction, and effect. Success is the best defense of the critics and the status quoers. And TFA is on its way.
Without doubt, TFA has a growing cadre of supporters throughout the nation. As it has expanded the cities and communities in which it serves, the organization has had a demonstrable impact on the school culture, on student and teacher motivation, and, yes, on student performance. Don’t believe Eduflack? Check out the comprehensive research study Mathematica has done on the effectiveness of TFA.
Unfortunately, such attention and growth also gives birth to a healthy opposition. I’ve long told reform clients that if you don’t have such critics, you aren’t doing your job. Changing the status quo, calling on stakeholders to work harder or think smarter or do better invariably always brings forward that opposition. And TFA is no exception.
For years, those critics have been led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, perhaps the greatest defender of the status quo pedagogy of teacher education. Yes, she is a name to be reckoned with. Yes, she brings a distinguished history of good work and a commitment to public education. But sometimes, even the best take a wrong turn.
The status quoers have tried to protect teacher education for decades. The result? Our students’ test scores have been relatively flat for most of Eduflack’s lifetime. We may claim that our schools of education are churning out the best educators ever to face a classroom, but the results don’t reflect that. For too long, we’ve allowed pedagogy to substitute for results. Sure, the inputs may be great, but what out the final outcomes? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are our students better of now than they were two decades ago?
The simple answer is, of course not. Today, we are asking far more of our students than ever before. Success in 2007 requires a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree or certificate. The time when only a third of high school students went to college is over. Instead, we are demanding multiple educational pathways for our students, pathways that provide every student with a way to postsecondary education and a guide to life success.
Which takes us back to Teach For America. If we are expected to build multiple instructional pathways for our students, it only goes to reason that we are to build multiple instructional pathways for our teachers as well. There is no one way to train a teacher. If there was, we’d build that factory and have a non-stop supply of highly qualified, effective teachers for every classroom, including those in low-performing areas.
No, the challenges of our schools requires multiple ways of thinking. From looking at those schools where programs like Teach For America or Troops to Teachers reside, we know that pedagogy is the least of these classrooms’ problems. Here, many students have all but given up hope. They’ve lost faith in the school, or in the teacher, or in learning itself. For them, it isn’t about instructional approaches. It is about repairing the school culture. Returning hope. Connecting the student with the teacher and the school.
And that’s where programs like TFA excel. Success is not measured by an individual teacher or a specific cadre of corps members. Success, in the long run, comes from knowing there will always been a TFA teacher in front of that classroom, a teacher who connects with the student, inspires the student, and reconnects the student’s passion for learning.
Accomplish that, and the student achievement will come. And scientific research can prove it. If anything, Darling-Hammond and her defenders of the status quo should be seeking out more opportunities and efforts like TFA. More programs that bring hope to inner-city schools. More programs that instill a culture of learning. More programs that provide our schools with enthusiastic, driven instructors eager to lead a classroom that has long been neglected. More programs that build a future generation of leadership on the notion that no issue is more important to the success of our nation and our community than a high-quality, effective education for ALL students.
Some critics, including those at dear ole Stanford, would point to the lifespan of a TFA teacher, questioning whether two years in the classroom really makes a difference. But how different is the two-year commitment of a TFA teacher from the short lifespan of today’s traditional new teacher? TFA’s mission was never to focus on teacher retention issues — it was to provide an ongoing stream of qualified, enthusiastic, committed educators in the communities that need them the most. TFA plays that specific role extremely well, so much so that it is continually embraced by superintendents, principals, and teachers across the nation. And in reality, the studies of TFA alumni show many of them stay in the classroom, go into school administration, or assume other roles that support education and growth in the community. And isn’t that a measure of an effective educator?
In a nation looking for K-12 solutions, we need multiple answers. One just won’t do. And Teach For America is definitely one of the answers. Ask a “traditional” teacher who works with a TFAer, and they’ll tell you the same thing. Ask a family whose child is in a TFA classroom, and they’ll concur. Ask Mathematica and other researchers, and they’ll give you the proof points.
Teacher For America and its leaders should enjoy their week in the sun. The hard work begins today. Across the nation, districts and schools know TFA and programs like it work. So as the critics circle, TFA, its leadership, and its corps members need to ensure the highest quality implementation, instruction, and effect. Success is the best defense of the critics and the status quoers. And TFA is on its way.
Unusual Allies
As one would suspect, there is a great deal of buzz in the ed reform community regarding this morning’s New York Times op-ed piece from Diane Ravitch. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03ravitch.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin With a provocative title “Get Congress Out of the Classroom” and a strong academic reputation, Ravitch gets people to take notice … even if NCLB bashing is cliché at this point.
What’s far more interesting, though, is holding Ravitch’s recommendations up against those made by Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale and others earlier this week in The Washington Post. At the time, Eduflack wrote, with great surprise, of Dale and company’s call for national testing and the realignment of responsibilities between the states and the feds. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/01/advocacy-from-the-urban-superintendent.aspx
Who would have thought that Ravitch, Dale, and Montgomery County (MD) Superintendent Jerry Weast would all be singing from the same hymnal? If researchers like Ravitch and urban superintendents like Dale and Weast keep sharing each other’s talking points on public education reform, we may just have meaningful, long-term school improvement yet!
What’s far more interesting, though, is holding Ravitch’s recommendations up against those made by Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale and others earlier this week in The Washington Post. At the time, Eduflack wrote, with great surprise, of Dale and company’s call for national testing and the realignment of responsibilities between the states and the feds. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/01/advocacy-from-the-urban-superintendent.aspx
Who would have thought that Ravitch, Dale, and Montgomery County (MD) Superintendent Jerry Weast would all be singing from the same hymnal? If researchers like Ravitch and urban superintendents like Dale and Weast keep sharing each other’s talking points on public education reform, we may just have meaningful, long-term school improvement yet!
Looking for Ideas Behind the Endorsement
This afternoon, the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton for President of the United States of America. It should be no surprise. The former Clinton administration had strong support in the teachers unions. And Senator Clinton has long been a friend of UFT, NYSUT, and AFT. In its endorsement, AFT cites Clinton’s “proven ability to advance our nation’s key priorities, and her bold plans for a stronger America.”
And good for the AFT. Rather than wait for additional polling data from the key early states, or wanting to see another quarter of fundraising totals, or waiting to hear more detail on specific issues and policies, the AFT has put its money down on the horse they expect to see in the winner’s circle. And they’ve done so believing that Clinton represents the best opportunity for AFT-friendly policies come January 2009.
Eduflack is going to assume that Clinton just wowed AFT during the interview process, discussing those bold plans and awing them with her discussion of how she would deal with those key priorities. Now she’s won their endorsement, and the organizational prowess, resources, and support that come with it.
But it’s got me scratching my head. For those of us watching from the cheap seats, what exactly is Hillary Clinton’s education platform? Visit her website, and you don’t even see “education” in her issues menu. Take some time to explore, and in the “Supporting Parents and Caring for Children” list, you’ll find a bullet to attract and retain good teachers and principals, one to improve NCLB and a bullet increasing access to high-quality early education (a plank she has been quite vocal on and should be credited for). But those issues are part of a laundry list that includes care for elderly Americans, support for “kinship families,” and opposition to sex and violence in the media.
We all talk about the importance of education. About the need to improve our schools. About the need to give every child a chance. And about how high-quality education affects everything from jobs to healthcare to justice to environment. Many of us cite education as the top domestic issue this nation faces. And national polls seem to regularly put it in the list of top fives issues, foreign or domestic.
So if it is so important, why are we still hearing so little of it from presidential candidates? What platform did Clinton offer to win the support of AFT? What changes would she make to improve NCLB? What commitments will she make to attract and retain good teachers? Does she support merit pay? What about alternative certification programs? How about multiple measures of progress? What interventions does she support to increase the graduation rate? What is the platform?
I don’t mean to pick on Clinton. She should be credited for putting forward a meaningful, thought-providing plan for improving early education. And at the end of the day, she may be the strongest education candidate, in terms of policy ideas, an understanding for the possible, and the capability to reach for the near-impossible. But if she wins the endorsement of the AFT (and we assume and NEA endorsement may not be too far behind), don’t the voters have a right to hear the specific ways the candidate will improve educational quality and delivery in the United States? And if we don’t, how do we hold the candidate, any candidate, accountable?
And good for the AFT. Rather than wait for additional polling data from the key early states, or wanting to see another quarter of fundraising totals, or waiting to hear more detail on specific issues and policies, the AFT has put its money down on the horse they expect to see in the winner’s circle. And they’ve done so believing that Clinton represents the best opportunity for AFT-friendly policies come January 2009.
Eduflack is going to assume that Clinton just wowed AFT during the interview process, discussing those bold plans and awing them with her discussion of how she would deal with those key priorities. Now she’s won their endorsement, and the organizational prowess, resources, and support that come with it.
But it’s got me scratching my head. For those of us watching from the cheap seats, what exactly is Hillary Clinton’s education platform? Visit her website, and you don’t even see “education” in her issues menu. Take some time to explore, and in the “Supporting Parents and Caring for Children” list, you’ll find a bullet to attract and retain good teachers and principals, one to improve NCLB and a bullet increasing access to high-quality early education (a plank she has been quite vocal on and should be credited for). But those issues are part of a laundry list that includes care for elderly Americans, support for “kinship families,” and opposition to sex and violence in the media.
We all talk about the importance of education. About the need to improve our schools. About the need to give every child a chance. And about how high-quality education affects everything from jobs to healthcare to justice to environment. Many of us cite education as the top domestic issue this nation faces. And national polls seem to regularly put it in the list of top fives issues, foreign or domestic.
So if it is so important, why are we still hearing so little of it from presidential candidates? What platform did Clinton offer to win the support of AFT? What changes would she make to improve NCLB? What commitments will she make to attract and retain good teachers? Does she support merit pay? What about alternative certification programs? How about multiple measures of progress? What interventions does she support to increase the graduation rate? What is the platform?
I don’t mean to pick on Clinton. She should be credited for putting forward a meaningful, thought-providing plan for improving early education. And at the end of the day, she may be the strongest education candidate, in terms of policy ideas, an understanding for the possible, and the capability to reach for the near-impossible. But if she wins the endorsement of the AFT (and we assume and NEA endorsement may not be too far behind), don’t the voters have a right to hear the specific ways the candidate will improve educational quality and delivery in the United States? And if we don’t, how do we hold the candidate, any candidate, accountable?
In this rush to wrap up the presidential campaigns by this winter, we run the risk of placing assumptions and core rhetoric ahead of real ideas and policies. In doing so, we continue to perpetuate the same old empty reform rhetoric, with no one being held accountable. For those of us who vote on education issues, we want to hear those “bold ideas” Senator Clinton has. That doesn’t come from one debate question or a well-placed oped. It comes from an integrated, coherent strategic plan for improving K-12 education.
Eduflack has bold ideas for a strong America too. But no one is going to rush to endorse me for President. Now that Clinton has the backing of AFT, I hope she will tell 1.4 million AFT members (and hundreds of millions of American voters) what specifically she is going to improve public education in the United States. That would be something to truly endorse. Now where’s Ed in 08 when we need them?
Eduflack has bold ideas for a strong America too. But no one is going to rush to endorse me for President. Now that Clinton has the backing of AFT, I hope she will tell 1.4 million AFT members (and hundreds of millions of American voters) what specifically she is going to improve public education in the United States. That would be something to truly endorse. Now where’s Ed in 08 when we need them?
Advocacy from the Urban Superintendent
The common thinking is that the urban superintendent is the last line of defense for the status quo. AASA has stood hard and long against the reforms in NCLB. Urban superintendents, it seems, are leading the charge against classroom measurement and AYP and other such improvements to education delivery and measurement.
We forget, though, that the educational leaders in our urban centers are also the early adopters of reforms like Teach for America and KIPP and New Leaders for New Schools. And we ignore that these superintendents are the ones with the highest stakes, and the ones most willing to try new reforms if they can deliver maximum impact.
And then we get slapped upside the head with a call for national standards.
For those who missed it, Eduflack is referring to an analysis in today’s Washington Post, written by Jay Matthews. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001503.html Based on interviews and public statements of Washington, DC-areas superintendents, Matthews paints a clear picture of a cadre of superintendents focused on reforms, improvements, and the bottom line.
It’s no secret that these leaders have voiced a real frustration with NCLB and many of its requirements. And these frustrations have been translated — by many, including Eduflack — as opposition to the law. But a closer look of the rhetoric paints a very different picture.
Just look at Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale. Past statements maligning NCLB testing requirements have been interpreted as opposition to testing itself. Yes, Dale has real issues with a series of state tests that don’t relate or integrate with one another, yet are governed by a single federal enforcement filter. His solution — let the feds develop the tests, and empower the states (and LEAs, I suppose) to enact the specific interventions necessary to turn our low-performing schools around and offer virtually every kid the keys to success.
And Dale isn’t alone. He seems to be joined in the call for national standards by the supes from Montgomery County, MD; Arlington County, VA; and others.
There’s no question that the voice of the superintendent has been almost non-existent when it comes to NCLB 2.0. Again, we assume a defense for the status quo and opposition to reforms or attempts to build a better mousetrap. We may assume, but we also need to verify.
Failed reforms are littered with the remains of assumptions and generalizations. If we’re looking to improve our struggling schools, we need to include the very superintendents who manage those schools. They know the problems. They know the reforms that have been tried and failed (or succeeded). And they know that, just sometimes, we need a little bold thinking that no one is expecting.
Now if only Dale and company can rally their fellow superintendents (and the organization that is supposed to represent their interests) to stand behind national standards, we may just have a reform that could make a lasting difference in every LEA and SEA across the nation.
We forget, though, that the educational leaders in our urban centers are also the early adopters of reforms like Teach for America and KIPP and New Leaders for New Schools. And we ignore that these superintendents are the ones with the highest stakes, and the ones most willing to try new reforms if they can deliver maximum impact.
And then we get slapped upside the head with a call for national standards.
For those who missed it, Eduflack is referring to an analysis in today’s Washington Post, written by Jay Matthews. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001503.html Based on interviews and public statements of Washington, DC-areas superintendents, Matthews paints a clear picture of a cadre of superintendents focused on reforms, improvements, and the bottom line.
It’s no secret that these leaders have voiced a real frustration with NCLB and many of its requirements. And these frustrations have been translated — by many, including Eduflack — as opposition to the law. But a closer look of the rhetoric paints a very different picture.
Just look at Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale. Past statements maligning NCLB testing requirements have been interpreted as opposition to testing itself. Yes, Dale has real issues with a series of state tests that don’t relate or integrate with one another, yet are governed by a single federal enforcement filter. His solution — let the feds develop the tests, and empower the states (and LEAs, I suppose) to enact the specific interventions necessary to turn our low-performing schools around and offer virtually every kid the keys to success.
And Dale isn’t alone. He seems to be joined in the call for national standards by the supes from Montgomery County, MD; Arlington County, VA; and others.
There’s no question that the voice of the superintendent has been almost non-existent when it comes to NCLB 2.0. Again, we assume a defense for the status quo and opposition to reforms or attempts to build a better mousetrap. We may assume, but we also need to verify.
Failed reforms are littered with the remains of assumptions and generalizations. If we’re looking to improve our struggling schools, we need to include the very superintendents who manage those schools. They know the problems. They know the reforms that have been tried and failed (or succeeded). And they know that, just sometimes, we need a little bold thinking that no one is expecting.
Now if only Dale and company can rally their fellow superintendents (and the organization that is supposed to represent their interests) to stand behind national standards, we may just have a reform that could make a lasting difference in every LEA and SEA across the nation.
Not in “My” School
Over the past few years, we’ve heard a great deal about the school choice provisions for families in failing schools. When it was passed into law, the critics painted a picture of a nation of students, fleeing their neighborhood schools (and the poor academic conditions they might house) and running for the nearest suburban school with shiny new desks, just out-of-the-wrap textbooks, and higher per-pupil costs. We stood by and waited for the great migration, as those schools that missed academic goals for two straight years would see all of their students flee.
According to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602368.html), that scenario hasn’t exactly played out. In fact, it doesn’t even seem to be a consideration. Of the 5.4 million students eligible under federal law to switch from a failing school, only 1.2 percent have made the move. That leaves 98.8 percent who have chosen to stay put.
Why? Why, when given a chance, are parents not willing to give up on a failing school in their community? Why, when given a chance, are kids not choosing to attend a school that is better, or at least better on paper? Why aren’t poor-performing schools forced to close, as all of their students move to higher-performing ones?
Some will say that there aren’t enough slots in those higher-performing schools, and families don’t have the choices we seem to think they do. While that may be true for a handful of students, is that really what is keeping more than nine of 10 students in their community school, regardless of its performance?
Of course not. Students stay in their schools because we don’t want to believe our neighborhood school is failing. Despite the AYP numbers, we trust our schools. We have faith in our principal. We like our teachers. Our child is happy at the school. The numbers must be wrong. Other schools in the area may be failing, but not mine. I just know it.
Back in 1990, the nation voiced loud displeasure for the job Congress was doing. Some minor scandals, coupled with an ever-growing budget deficit and the sense of a “do nothing” Congress had voters calling for them all to be thrown out. Much like today’s poll numbers, we were clamoring for the whole Congress to be voted out of office prior to the November election. They were all corrupt bums. We needed a new class. So Election Day came and … virtually every incumbent was re-elected. The pollsters went back to see if they had messed up their previous interviews. What they found was startling. Across the nation, we still wanted to throw those bums out. Everyone, that was, but our congressman. They’re all bad, except for my guy.
And that’s what we’re seeing with our schools. We recognize our nation’s schools need help. And we know it is hard to find a single school that couldn’t benefit from a more effective curriculum, better student measures, or more effective teachers. But we’re not ready to give up on our own school. Those other schools may need to be overhauled or closed altogether, but not mine. Mine has hope. Mine has potential. It’s my school, after all, and I’m going to protect it.
That’s not a bad sentiment to have. The next task becomes transferring that defense of school into a school-based effort to improve. Take that school pride, and transform it into reforms that can make a difference. Really give those parents a school (and school outcomes) to be proud of.
The ability to transfer from a low-performing school is a lovely rhetorical tool. It puts all schools on notice, and provides parents and families the power to decide the academic futures of their children. It provides some hope into what was once a hopeless situation. But it is not a panacea for low-performing schools.
At the end of the day, the goal should be to fix struggling schools, not abandon them. The objective should be to have students both happy and achieving in their neighborhood schools. If the threat of transfer gets us closer to that goal, terrific.
Numbers don’t lie. We know which schools are performing, and which are struggling. The challenge is taking the data and fixing the latter, intellectually rebuilding schools so all kids, parents, and neighborhoods really have something to be proud of.
According to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602368.html), that scenario hasn’t exactly played out. In fact, it doesn’t even seem to be a consideration. Of the 5.4 million students eligible under federal law to switch from a failing school, only 1.2 percent have made the move. That leaves 98.8 percent who have chosen to stay put.
Why? Why, when given a chance, are parents not willing to give up on a failing school in their community? Why, when given a chance, are kids not choosing to attend a school that is better, or at least better on paper? Why aren’t poor-performing schools forced to close, as all of their students move to higher-performing ones?
Some will say that there aren’t enough slots in those higher-performing schools, and families don’t have the choices we seem to think they do. While that may be true for a handful of students, is that really what is keeping more than nine of 10 students in their community school, regardless of its performance?
Of course not. Students stay in their schools because we don’t want to believe our neighborhood school is failing. Despite the AYP numbers, we trust our schools. We have faith in our principal. We like our teachers. Our child is happy at the school. The numbers must be wrong. Other schools in the area may be failing, but not mine. I just know it.
Back in 1990, the nation voiced loud displeasure for the job Congress was doing. Some minor scandals, coupled with an ever-growing budget deficit and the sense of a “do nothing” Congress had voters calling for them all to be thrown out. Much like today’s poll numbers, we were clamoring for the whole Congress to be voted out of office prior to the November election. They were all corrupt bums. We needed a new class. So Election Day came and … virtually every incumbent was re-elected. The pollsters went back to see if they had messed up their previous interviews. What they found was startling. Across the nation, we still wanted to throw those bums out. Everyone, that was, but our congressman. They’re all bad, except for my guy.
And that’s what we’re seeing with our schools. We recognize our nation’s schools need help. And we know it is hard to find a single school that couldn’t benefit from a more effective curriculum, better student measures, or more effective teachers. But we’re not ready to give up on our own school. Those other schools may need to be overhauled or closed altogether, but not mine. Mine has hope. Mine has potential. It’s my school, after all, and I’m going to protect it.
That’s not a bad sentiment to have. The next task becomes transferring that defense of school into a school-based effort to improve. Take that school pride, and transform it into reforms that can make a difference. Really give those parents a school (and school outcomes) to be proud of.
The ability to transfer from a low-performing school is a lovely rhetorical tool. It puts all schools on notice, and provides parents and families the power to decide the academic futures of their children. It provides some hope into what was once a hopeless situation. But it is not a panacea for low-performing schools.
At the end of the day, the goal should be to fix struggling schools, not abandon them. The objective should be to have students both happy and achieving in their neighborhood schools. If the threat of transfer gets us closer to that goal, terrific.
Numbers don’t lie. We know which schools are performing, and which are struggling. The challenge is taking the data and fixing the latter, intellectually rebuilding schools so all kids, parents, and neighborhoods really have something to be proud of.
“All We Are Sayin’ Is Give NCLB a Chance …”
What a way to start the week. As Eduflack was trying to re-engage into the world after less than a week of family vacation, there is the New York Times oped calling on Congress and the U.S. Department of Education to resist the National Education Association and its attempts to weaken No Child Left Behind. Today, we get the Washington Post editorializing that we cannot weaken NCLB, and they complement it by dedicating two-thirds of their op-ed page to essay-ettes on the virtues (or lack thereof) of the nation’s K-12 law.
That’s a lot of column inches dedicated to the protection of NCLB. Heck, it is a lot of words dedicated to national education policy. And it was just the sort of rhetoric that caught many by surprise, and had some downright fall out of their chairs.
Yes, we expect folks like NEA’s Reg Weaver and Fairfax County, Virginia Supe Jack Dale striking out against NCLB. But did anyone expect the growing chorus of support for NCLB?
No, we didn’t expect it, but we’re thrilled to hear it. Finally, the talk is about NCLB. Finally, the buzz is about the strongest possible interpretations of student achievement. And finally, the focus is on effective measurement and evidence-based decisionmaking.
In doing so, we have taken a major step in the messaging and PR surrounding NCLB. This is no longer a yes/no decision. The voices of support have broken through the white noise, and we now see that NCLB (and its accompanying subsidiaries like Reading First and Highly Qualified Teachers) will remain the law of the land. The rhetoric is not about gutting the law. Instead, we are talking about improving it.
There is agreement on the need to assess student learning. Now we just need decide on the merits of a single measure versus multiple measures. There is agreement on quality teaching. Now we just need to decide on the merits of training and pedagogy versus classroom results. There is agreement on evidence-based instruction. Now we just need to distinguish between the good research and the bad. And now there is agreement that effective education is based on student achievement. Now we just need to determine how to bring that new focus to every state, school district, and classroom throughout the nation.
One thing’s clear, it is going to be an interesting fall. Yes, there are still many cards to be played in this game. But if we start peeking at the hand that’s been dealt, the odds of NCLB 2.0 fulfilling the wishes of folks like WaPo, EdTrust, and others are looking stronger by the day.
That’s a lot of column inches dedicated to the protection of NCLB. Heck, it is a lot of words dedicated to national education policy. And it was just the sort of rhetoric that caught many by surprise, and had some downright fall out of their chairs.
Yes, we expect folks like NEA’s Reg Weaver and Fairfax County, Virginia Supe Jack Dale striking out against NCLB. But did anyone expect the growing chorus of support for NCLB?
No, we didn’t expect it, but we’re thrilled to hear it. Finally, the talk is about NCLB. Finally, the buzz is about the strongest possible interpretations of student achievement. And finally, the focus is on effective measurement and evidence-based decisionmaking.
In doing so, we have taken a major step in the messaging and PR surrounding NCLB. This is no longer a yes/no decision. The voices of support have broken through the white noise, and we now see that NCLB (and its accompanying subsidiaries like Reading First and Highly Qualified Teachers) will remain the law of the land. The rhetoric is not about gutting the law. Instead, we are talking about improving it.
There is agreement on the need to assess student learning. Now we just need decide on the merits of a single measure versus multiple measures. There is agreement on quality teaching. Now we just need to decide on the merits of training and pedagogy versus classroom results. There is agreement on evidence-based instruction. Now we just need to distinguish between the good research and the bad. And now there is agreement that effective education is based on student achievement. Now we just need to determine how to bring that new focus to every state, school district, and classroom throughout the nation.
One thing’s clear, it is going to be an interesting fall. Yes, there are still many cards to be played in this game. But if we start peeking at the hand that’s been dealt, the odds of NCLB 2.0 fulfilling the wishes of folks like WaPo, EdTrust, and others are looking stronger by the day.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 