PR

In Search of Relevancy

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Spellings

It’s been a busy week in education, what with SAT scores released, the Miller-McKeon draft dropped, and classes starting in school districts across the nation.  It can be a tough time to gain some meaningful news coverage this year, even if you are the educator-in-chief.

We’ve all commented on the incredible media coverage Margaret Spellings has received since becoming Secretary of Education.  She has been focused on issues, level-headed in her comments, and in control of the situation.  Even as Reading First scandals swirled and IG reports became best-sellers, Spellings knew how to stay on message, reframe the issues, and remain relevant.

But this week, Spellings has Eduflack scratching his head.  First, she’s up in Alaska, doing a day of NCLB “tours.”  While I understand the call to support a Republican Senator in trouble, are the votes in the Alaskan congressional delegation and the public opinion in our northern-most state really a pressing need for the U.S. Department of Education?  And if the goal was to focus on rural education issues, there are far more effective ways to draw attention the challenges of rural ed than leaving the lower 48.

And then there was the Q&A in today’s USA Today.  Spellings has always played well with USA Today, and the newspaper has always had a clear understanding of the intent of the law, the progress it has made, and the challenges Spellings and company face during reauthorization and beyond. 

Check out the Q&A, though.  http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/nclb-is-working.html?csp=34  It is an interesting read, sure.  But there seems to be a disconnect between the interview and the very real issues policymakers are dealing with on NCLB and related issues.  There was no sense of urgency.  There was no sense of the push to improve the law.  There was no unwavering commitment to improving the quality, delivery, and impact of education for all students.  It reads more like a coffee shop chat than it does a call to action to more than a million readers.

Could it be that the U.S. Secretary of Education has lost her relevancy in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? 

Turning the Corner on NCLB?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Reading First, Spellings

For months now, one of the greatest parlor games in DC education policy sectors has been when No Child Left Behind will be reauthorized.  Depending on who you listen to, it’ll happen next month, this fall, or maybe 2009.  We’ve seen a number of “alternative” bills proposed, and we’ve heard the calls for outright elimination of NCLB.

A few weeks ago, we heard from Congressman George Miller on his views of NCLB.  Again, nothing earth-shattering there, other than the good congressman floated the trial balloon of multiple assessments in evaluating student achievement.  The rhetoric seemed to stick, if this week’s proposal is any indication.

I’ll leave it to the policy wonks to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Miller-McKeon “draft” for NCLB reauthorization.  From the cheap seats, Eduflack is glad to see key components of NCLB remain intact, is a little disappointed in the proposed perceived weakening of accountability provisions, and concerned about the future of full funding for Reading First.

No, what is really of interest is HOW Miller and McKeon are working this reauthorization, and what it says about the future of NCLB 2.0.

First, they are offering a bipartisan solution.  At a time when rhetoric and vitriol is at its best (or worst) on Capitol Hill, we’ve got a powerful Democrat and an equally powerful Republican joining together to offer a meaningful solution to a politically charged problem.  Just as NCLB was positioned six years ago, this is not a blue or red issue.  Providing all students with a high-quality education, an effective teacher, and opportunity is an American issue.  We entered the NCLB in bipartisan fashion, and we now enter 2.0 the same way.

Second, the two demonstrate they understand the challenges stakeholders, bomb throwers, and status quoers pose to meaningful legislation.  They opened the tent, leaving no voice out at this point in the process.  This week’s announcement is intended as the start of the dialogue, purposely released so all concerned can comment, criticize, and offer improvements.  Miller and McKeon may know well, but they admit that the views of others are equally important in improving the law.  They opened the lines of communication, versus cutting them off from the start.

Finally, they issued no ultimatums.  There is no line in the sand.  Just the commitment that we are continuing the law, and we are seeking to improve the law.  Opponents can’t shoot down this draft … yet.  And if one seeks to wait to criticize after the reauthorization bill is dropped, they are guilty of refusing to participate in the process.   You gotta play the game in the early innings if you expect to win it in the ninth.

Yes, there are still many miles to go on NCLB reauthorization.  And this draft still needs a lot of work before it is a true improvement in the law.  But if this week is any indication, Miller and McKeon understand how to marketing and promote their vision and their intentions.  A bipartisan approach, an approach that invites input and offers the time and space for continued improvement, is just what the current situation calls for.  These two congressional leaders have reduced the temperature a little on NCLB, and provided a tad bit of hope in what was once seen as a hopeless situation.

Expanding Our View

Eduflack early childhood education, PR

Typically, the education community focuses on its own universe.  Practitioners talk to practitioners.  Researchers to researchers.  Policymakers to policymakers.  Influencers to influencers.  Even flacks to flacks.  We rely on those who understand our position, have stood in our shoes, and know of what they speak.

It’s only been recently that we have seen the business community for more than just its checkbook.  In recent years, states, districts, and schools have seen the enormous role the corporate sector can play in improving instructional quality, boosting focus on results and the bottom line, and focusing our work in the classroom with the work our students may face after passing through the schoolhouse doors for the last time.

As a result, we’ve seen growing dialogue between educators and business, all in the name of the 21st century global workforce, global competitiveness, and relevant instruction.

This approach serves two core communications purposes.  The first is to get educators thinking about the end game — preparing students for the real world.  The second (and the one often overlooked) is it gets the business community thinking about and acting on the educational needs of their business, their industry sector, and their current and future employers.

Case in point, Jeffrey M. Lacker’s commentary in today’s Washington Post.  If you missed it, it was because it was in the Business section (a place where few educators dare to tread), and not in Metro or the A section.  Lacker is President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, and the piece in question was excerpted from Lacker’s presentation at the Governor’s Summit on Early Childhood Development in Virginia.  Check it out for yourself — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601079.html.

And why is this commentary so important to the communication of education reform?  First, it clearly examines public education through a private sector lens, exploring issues like human capital, skill differentials, and the rest.  More importantly, it expands the education-business continuum.  Instead of only focusing on high schools and skill acquisition, Lacker also cites the need to attend to and invest in early childhood education.  In its simplest way, you invest in a three- or five-year-old’s education now, and it will pay exponential dividends come high school or college graduation.

Too often, we think the concerns over the global economy can be fixed with last-minute interventions in secondary school.  But anyone who has been in a classroom knows that if we don’t equip our kids with the skills and educational building blocks from go, its gets harder and harder to achieve as you move through the school system.

Lacker’s right.  A children’s education is a smart investment.  And like all smart investments, we need to properly fund it, watch it grow and mature, and reap the benefits once it has run its course.  Lacker and the Federal Reserve may be onto something here.  Is anyone listening?

More College Ranking Brouhaha

Eduflack higher ed, NCLB, PR

Just when we thought it was safe to go back into the higher education waters.  Last week, U.S. News & World Report released its annual college rankings, suffering the growing criticism around methodology and the swelling group of four-year institutions choosing not to submit their data for review.  Still, the top 25 remain strong (with Eduflack’s alma mater still one of the top public universities — Wahoowah!).

This week, Scott Jaschik at Inside Higher Ed unveils a new rankings controversy — the ranking of our nation’s top community colleges.  http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/20/ccranking 

Working with data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, Washington Monthly has assembled a list of America’s Best Community Colleges, published under a subhead banner — “Why they’re better than some of the ‘best’ four-year universities.”

CCSSE is quick to point out that its survey was not intended to serve as the ruler for the measurement of two-year colleges.  Regardless, Washington Monthly has taken the available data, mixed it with graduation rates, and provided a vehicle to make educated choices, compare institutions, and help students better understand where their education dollars are going.

Does it matter?  Of course it does.  At no time in our nation’s history has our network of community colleges played such an important role in our education continuum.  Community colleges and technical schools are now key in providing students the skills and knowledge they to perform in the 21st century economy.  The pipeline between two- and four-year institutions is growing larger and stronger every year.  And community colleges are finding the demands for education growing, as they deal with everything from an increased immigrant pool to workforce retraining and mid-career changers.

More importantly, though, Washington Monthly placed two-year colleges on relatively equal footing with four-years, an action that educators have struggled with for decades.  The publication measured community colleges through categories such as enrollment, tuition rates, student-faculty interaction and graduation rates.  It appears Education Sector assisted Washington Monthly with the study.

Why is it all so important?  One may be able to quibble with the methodology or question some of the rankings, but this community college list sends some powerful messages. 
* Quality and impact are key factors in choosing a school, whether it be two year or four year.
* There is a growing demand for data on our educational institutions.
* Community colleges are now one of the successful paths high school graduates can take to a rewarding career.

Community colleges should look at Washington Monthly’s rankings with pride.  We rank when demand outweighs supply.  We rank when we seek high quality and don’t want to settle.  We rank when we want to know we’re making the right choices.  We rank when we see value.  This is a sign we are now starting to value the role of the community college in the K-20 education continuum.

Time Magazine: Ed Reform Pub of Record?

Eduflack NCLB, PR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Sign of the Times

Eduflack Marketing, PR, Students

We spend a lot of time focused on the meaning (or lack thereof) of specific words when it comes to talking about education reform.  What’s the intent?  What’s the goal?  What’s the measurement?

But sometimes, a item hits Eduflack like a sledgehammer, and just doesn’t need such exploration.  Case in point — “My Child’s Pack.” (http://www.mychildspack.com/)  Special thanks to Alexandra Bruell at PRWeek for throwing the spotlight on this latest back to school product.

What is it?  There is now a line of ballistic backpacks for middle and high school students designed to “provide on the spot protection against guns and knife violence!”

MJ Safety Solutions clearly knows the problem, the solution, and are not shy to talk about it in the bluntest of terms.  Do we even have to ask what message this sends?  Or what parental concern it is addressing?  Of course not.  There’s no misunderstanding the message here.

I loved back-to-school time because it meant a new Trapper Keeper.  Oh how times have changed.

“Reading” the Research

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Droppin’ Out

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Spellings

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

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

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

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

Those Lazy, Hazy Days

Eduflack ACT, Marketing, NCLB, PR

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

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

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

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

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

So what’s an educause supposed to do?

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

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

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

Reform is More Than a Four-Letter Word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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