This week, Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University released their second annual survey on public education. There is a lot of interesting data here (http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/26380034.html).
For years, we have subscribed to the notion that we believe our own schools are doing a great job, even if we think public schools nationally are struggling. What does the data say? Nationally, only 9% of those surveyed would give their own schools an A (still a huge improvement from the 2% who give us an A nationally). More than half of those surveyed said their own schools scored a C or worse, while more than three-quarters of adults gave a C or poorer to our schools nationally.
By comparison, 19% give our local police force an A. Heck, 22% give the post office an A.
But we are schizophrenic on our views of our schools. Three quarters of adults rate the schools average (C) or worse, yet 56% believe our schools are heading in the right direction (with two of three teachers surveyed seeing an upward trend).
The right direction must be because of NCLB, right? Wrong. Half of adults say NCLB should either be overhauled or not renewed at all. With teachers, three-quarters of educators give it a thumbs down.
Huh? How can that be? We are headed in the right direction, but we need to dramatically change or reject the path we’ve been taking for the past six years? It just doesn’t make sense.
Education Next does deserve credit for its definition of NCLB. Over the past five years, survey after survey has tried to capture similar data, with varied results. And it often comes down to the questions posed. For this survey, NCLB is defined simply: “the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set standards in math and reading and to test students each year to determine whether schools are making adequate progress, and to intervene when they are not.”
On the plus side, 69% of adults want national education standards, and want standards defined as “one test and standard for all students.” (A majority of teachers, 54%, support a single national standard.)
What does all this tell us? Unfortunately, we’re back to a familiar refrain from Eduflack. We must do a better job of promoting the progress, the successes, and the good works of our local schools. For the past few years, we have dwelled on the negatives and the negatives only. Failing students. Over-their-head teachers. Overworked administrators. Unconcerned parents. Is it any wonder we don’t see any A schools out there, either nationally or in our own communities?
Reforming schools is about improving schools. We can put in the right curriculum. Train and support the right teachers. Demonstrate improved student achievement. It is all for naught if we aren’t “selling” reform and educating stakeholders on what’s really happening in our classrooms. If this data is any indication, effective marketing and PR for our schools may be almost as important instruction.
PR
“What Happened?”
When Eduflack first started off on Capitol Hill, I was fortunate enough to have a mentor who invested the time in teaching me the finer points of being an “on-the-record” spokesman. I was working for Sen. Robert C. Byrd (WV) at the time, 22 years old and incredibly wet behind the ears. Byrd’s spokesperson on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Marsha Berry, took me under her wing. She walked me through the Senate Press Gallery, introducing me to the gaggle of reporters. She gave me a great deal of advice and coaching.
One piece of advice she left me was a simple one that I have followed every since. “Never, ever lie,” Marsha said. Lie to a reporter once, and you’ve lost his trust. Lose his trust, and you can’t do the job.
She was absolutely right, and I have done my best to ensure that I always told reporters the truth. I went on to serve as spokesman for other senators and congressmen. I did it for government panels and government agencies. For non-profits and corporations. I even did it on the campaign trail. And while I’d sometimes joke about plausible deniability (usually around questions of campaign fundraising), my goal was always to provide needed information to reporters. Sure, I’d spin it in a favorable way. But the information was always accurate (or as accurate as it could be), and I trusted what I said.
I have always known I was fortunate when it came to who I worked for. Be it Byrd, Senator Bill Bradley (NJ), or Congressman John Olver (MA), I worked for honorable men who I trusted and who I was proud to work for. Yes, I regularly jousted with them on particular policy issues, asking if voting against X policy was good for the upcoming campaign, but I knew I worked for good men who were ultimately doing what they knew was best. And I thought that’s what most spokespeople did. Particularly if you worked for the President of the United States.
By now, most of us have heard of Scott McClennan’s new memoir, “What Happened.” The former Bush press secretary takes a very aggressive stance against his former boss. And, essentially, McClennan says he regularly stood up behind the podium and lied to reporters on a host of issues. Of course, it was his higher-ups’ fault that he lied. He just followed orders.
Eduflack just can’t buy that. Sure, I have never walked in McClennan’s shoes. I’ve only done the job on Capitol Hill. But I’ve done it long enough to know that a good press secretary (or communications director, whatever your preferred title may be) takes the time to look under the hood and understand the issues. He moves beyond the talking points to learn. He asks questions. He anticipates even more questions. And he is prepared to deal with any issue that is thrown his way. He becomes an expert on all issues, and rarely takes any one person’s word on a controversial topic.
Saying you lied and just followed orders is a cop out. It’s lazy work, and it is one of the reasons folks think PR is so easy. A good spokesman knows all the facts. He relays those facts as effectively as possible. He speaks truth, even under tough circumstances. He truly sees himself as an extension of his boss, sharing information to as broad an audience as possible.
I know, I know, what does all of this have to do with education reform? A great deal, actually. When educators are selling their education reforms, be it to the media or the community, they need to be trustworthy. They can’t stretch the data or make guesses about impact. They need to know the facts, and stick to them. And they can never, ever lie. If you do, your reform is history. No educator, no policymaker, no reporter will take you seriously if you are caught telling an untruth about efficacy or impact.
Golden Parachutes for Supes?
We all know it is tough to be a superintendent, particularly in an urban area. We hear the average tenure is now less that two years for these educational leaders. We read stories of superintendents bouncing from district to district to district, hoping that the same approach may result in a different outcome in a new school system. And, unfortunately, we’re now hearing the stories about supes using their positions to protect their careers.
There are very few supes who would ever be able to secure a true golden parachute from their districts, a long-term financial commitment that would be honored whether the leader is heading the schools or not. But what about those superintendents who give the perception that they are acquiring their own parachutes?
Case in point, Pinellas (FL) schools superintendent Clayton Wilcox. The full story is in today’s St. Petersburg Times (thanks, www.ednews.org). — http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article509020.ece. The song is a simple tune with a common refrain. Education company does a lot of business with the district. Supe gains some benefit from that business (albeit not a lot). Supe senses his tenure is coming to an end. Education company hires supe to an executive position.
Let Eduflack be clear. There is a lot of smoke in this article, but I just don’t see the fire. Scholastic was a long-time vendor to Pinellas before Wilcox got there. Spending didn’t go up while he was there. He even released a report criticizing Read 180’s effectiveness in the district. Scholastic acquired some Broadway tickets for him, which he promptly paid for. And as they did for virtually every other supe in the nation, Scholastic picked up the tab for a few breakfasts and dinners over the years. Heck, I’m guessing most education companies have done that for Wilcox and his brethren during the same time period.
The issue here becomes one of a job. Again, if we break down the facts and relate it to our own lives, it isn’t that big of a deal. Wilcox suspected his time in Pinellas was coming to an end. Like most of us would do, he contacted friends and colleagues about possible opportunities. Scholastic got serious about the discussion, and asked him join their team. So?
Do we think Scholastic now gets an extra benefit in dealing with Pinellas? Of course not. In fact, it may be just the opposite. A new supe in Florida is going to think twice about signing a new Scholastic contract. He’ll want to carve out his own path, and not follow in Wilcox’ footsteps. And he’ll know everyone is watching him, particularly on his dealings with Scholastic. It’s not the scrutiny Scholastic wants, even if Scholastic may be the greatest thing ever to be introduced into Pinellas.
It just doesn’t matter, particularly if we believe in what goes bump in the night. Truth is often a subjective thing. It shouldn’t be, but it is. As a result, we believe in urban legends. We listen to a series of facts, and make a blind leap into what we believe the truth is. We believe what we want to believe. We expect that something crooked must be up in the Scholastic-Pinellas-Wilcox triumvirate.
What’s the solution? Non-competes and cooling off periods. We all know Members of Congress or federal officials must wait a year (or longer) before they can lobby the federal government. I’ve had to sign non-compete agreements stating I will not go to a competitor or to a client within 12 months of ending a job. Maybe the time has come for such agreements in K-12 education.
We all know education is big business. The line between for-profit and not-for-profit is blurring. And many believe that former supes are the answer to lagging sales, thinking the thick rolodex leads to closed deals. So why not a one-year waiting period before a school official can sell into his or her former district?
It may be the only way to lessen the impact of conspiracy theories and the unfounded belief that a couple of tickets to Hairspray will get you $1.6 million in education spend.
Let this be a warning to all other administrators. Perception is the new reality. Seems instead of leaders and innovators, we’re looking for Ned Flanders to run our school districts these days.
The Call Heard Round the District
By now, things are starting to settle on Fairfax County, VA’s great snow day voicemail saga. It’s the same old story. Disgruntled high school student calls school district COO at home. Leaves message. COO’s wife returns the call with some choice insults for student. Said student posts voicemail on the web for all to hear and turn into their favorite ringtone. Media adds fuel to the fire by giving it prime real estate on the evening news and the front of the metro section.
Over at Municipalist (www.municipalist.com), they have done a good job of chronicling the saga, as well as examining it from a communications/new media perspective. This coverage includes thoughts from yours truly, who finds the whole story both interesting and a little frustrating.
Eduflack’s full post follows, but it is worth the visit to Municipalist to see some interesting commentary. Of course, I was wrong of one thing. The student violated school policy (using a cell phone during school hours), and is visiting detention for the violation. So I have been shown the school policy he violated. Otherwise, it is still on point, a week after the offense went public.
“Like it or not, we are entering a new frontier in public education. Parents are now checking assignments and progress on the Web. Teachers give students their email and IM addresses that are accessible at all hours. Today’s students process information 24-7, and their engagement knows few boundaries.
One of the greatest challenges our schools face is getting the learning process to match how students communicate and how they interact. If we don’t get our information from one source, then we simple move on to the next. And that’s exactly what Dave Kori did. He wanted his voice heard. He called the office, but no response. So he called a listed phone number and gave voice to his concern. If any of us had access to the home number for Bill Gates, the CEO of US Airways, or the owner of our favorite sports team, we’d probably do the same thing.
As is typical in our 24-7 communication world, the problem was not with the action, but it was with the reaction. Had Candy Tistadt simply deleted the message or ranted about it to her friends, no big deal. But she couldn’t let a call from a “snotty-nosed little brat” go. And her reaction is what got the whole tsunami going. She used the wrong message with the wrong audience, and it is only exacerbated by the fact that she wasn’t even the recipient of Kori’s call in the first place! She injected herself into a public debate, when she wasn’t even invited to take the podium.
Should the school district punish Kori? Of course not. Show me one law or school rule he violated. He called a public official at a phone number that is both public and easily accessed by anyone who may want it. And while he may have been overly casual in his language or even addressed the topic inappropriately, immaturity is hardly a crime.
It’s laughable, though, to think that Kori’s action are, as Fairfax Schools spokesman Paul Regnier suggested, harassment. Dean Tistadt is a public figure, like it or not. He got a phone call from a concerned citizen, who identified himself and left his phone number. That seems to be the sort of responsibility we want high school students to demonstrate, not what they should be reprimanded for.
At the end of the day, the school district would have been wise to have stayed out of the issue altogether. By commenting on the situation and throwing around terms like harassment, the district only raises the temperature of the whole situation. We need to choose our fights, and this is one that the schools just can’t win. This boils down to an issue between a teenager and the wife of a public official. Do we really want Superintendent Jack Dale or his spokesperson to get in the middle of this? Of course not. Their attention should be on far more important issues facing the district and the community.
We preach that today’s students need to be responsible and innovative. They need to solve problems and be resourceful. They need to stand for what they believe, and they need to advocate for those issues. Imagine if Kori put his organizational and advocacy skills to work for an issue that mattered. A snow day is hardly standing up for civil rights or equal education, but it is a start.”
Taking Responsibility for School Reform
We all know that our schools do not operate in vacuums. They are a part of our local community. They serve as meeting places and as learning places. They feed our students, house after-school programs, and often host adult education efforts. They serve as a focal point for all in the community, whether they be teacher, student, parent, or none of the above. As such, we all play a role in their success … or their failure.
That is why Eduflack has advocated for a big tent when it comes to school reform. It is unfair that teachers take most of the blame for the failure of our schools. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect teachers to take sole responsibility for improving our schools and boosting student achievement. We all benefit from stronger schools. We all have a responsibility to get there. Teachers and school administrators. Parents and students. Business and community leaders. Colleges, universities, and trade schools. Federal, state, and local policymakers. Coaches and the clergy. School reform is hard work. We aren’t in a position to turn anyone away from participating in the improvement.
Over the weekend, though, Eduflack engaged in an electronic give-and-take with a reader who saw things differently. The reader suggested that the only stakeholder who should be involved in K-12 reform is the teacher, with the intent being only those who have taught (and taught for more than a year or two) are knowledgeable and qualified enough to opine and decide on what is taught, how it is taught, and how it is measured.
I would like to believe that we all can agree that our K-12 institutions are in need of improvement. We can agree that we all are affected when our schools fail. We all can play a role in improving them. And the current state of public education in the United States doesn’t allow us to turn away those who want to help or should help. So how do we rectify this with the beliefs of some that only those who have taught should talk about teaching (or more importantly, improving teaching)?
If we buy into the status quo logic, we have a lot of people in education who need to get out. By the reader’s logic, Ted Kennedy has no business overseeing education policy in the Senate. Wendy Kopp had no right to start Teach for America after graduating Princeton. Most school boards, populated by business and community leaders, should cease meeting immediately. And Bill Gates clearly has no business telling school districts how to redesign their high schools. After all, he is a college dropout!
We can even say that many teacher educators, those who train our classroom teachers, need to stay out of the discussion, as they moved from their doctoral programs to the faculty senate at the local teacher’s college, without putting in the prerequisite years of K-12 classroom instruction. All, of course, absurd suggestions.
Ultimately, improving our schools means reforming our educational system. And reform only comes from change and overcoming the status quo. That comes from multiple audiences, with multiple perspectives and interests, all calling for similar reform. Policymakers and the business community pushing top down. Teachers and parents and community leaders pushing bottom up. All ultimately squeezing out real, meaningful reform.
Don’t get me wrong. Experienced, effective practitioners are an essential voice in the reform process. They can help other stakeholders understand what is possible and what is not. They have walked the walk, and know what we need to get us to our intended destination. But they can’t do it alone, and we shouldn’t expect them to. They need policy and financial support from their school district and elected officials. They need the investment and interest of the business community. They need the involvement of parents and families. It takes a village to raise a child, and it surely takes a community to educate one.
If we don’t see this, then the failure is not an instructional one, it is a communications one. If we cannot see the value and necessity of a broad coalition of stakeholders when it comes to education reform, then we have not communicated the urgency successfully enough. Whether you are watching from the home, the community center, the state capitol, or the ivory tower, it should be clear that our schools need help. The status quo isn’t cutting it. And none of us should be saddling our teachers with the sole responsibility of fixing it all.
Let’s empower our good teachers to teach. It’s up to the rest of us to provide them the policies, the funding, and the support they need to teach effectively and boost student achievement and enthusiasm for learning.
Equal Opportunities for Success?
There seems to be virtual agreement that much more needs to be done to improve our nation’s public schools. Education is, and should be, the great equalizer. Under the current law of the land — NCLB — our nation is committed to providing access to a high-quality, effective education for all students. For those who can’t get such an education at their community school, the law provides for vouchers, supplemental services, school choice, charter schools, and even improved instruction through Reading First.
For months now, Eduflack has been waiting for the presidential candidates to jump into the rhetorical debate on the future of public education. Aside from a few quick phrases and taglines along the fringes, most have stayed away from the education issue. After last week’s NEA conference, it seems a few are starting to dip their toes into the water.
The latest is John Edwards. Seeking to promote his “two Americas” agenda, Edwards chose New Orleans to take his first stand on improving public education. The Politico has the story. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4957.html
His solution? Busing and housing vouchers. Sure, he offers a few additional ideas, but once his stump speech makes its way through the media filters (if the media even notices), it will be remembered for two issues — busing and housing vouchers. And that’s a shame.
In promoting these ideas, Edwards is saying that some communities in this country are beyond assistance. We need to bus kids away from struggling schools, hoping a change of scenery will boost student achievement. And we need to uproot families, telling them that opportunity can only come to those in some, not all, communities.
This is the wrong message at the wrong time. At the root of meaningful education reform is the belief that all schools can be improved if they have access to proven instruction and high-quality teachers. NCLB strengthens that belief, committing the nation to ensure that no child is left behind and all children have access to a high-quality, effective education.
Spending $100 million on a busing plan doesn’t solve the problem. Instead, we’re playing three-card monty, hoping that no one flips over the underlying problem. Shuffling kids around doesn’t improve educational quality. It may help a few kids improve, but it doesn’t fix the problem. Don’t believe me? Take a look at how well busing worked in the 1960s and 1970s. Many cities have just recently ended that failed social experiment. In 2007, we should all rally around the belief that all students should have a chance to succeed, not just those fortunate enough to gain a seat on the bus, a slot in a magnet school lottery, or a voucher for a new apartment.
Senator Edwards, if you really want to tear down the walls between the two Americas, offer an idea for getting effective teachers in some of the most struggling of classrooms. Provide the means to ensure that proven-effective instruction is taught with fidelity in every school, regardless of socioeconomic standing. Commit to holding all schools accountable, giving all students the resources and support they need to achieve.
Edwards has put a weak volley across the education reform net. Who’s up for returning it with a little umph?
“One of These Stories Doesn’t Belong … “
Any devoted student of Sesame Street knows the segment — “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn’t belong.” We used it to differentiate shapes or to separate the dogs from the cats. Who knew it would come in handy with regard to recent NCLB commentary in two of the top papers in the nation.
So let’s look at those three articles. First we have an editorial in the Aug. 7 Washington Post calling for reauthorization of NCLB, with a particular focus on Congressman George Miller’s recent comments of his push to improve NCLB. Second, we have an editorial in USA Today the day before, also calling for the reauthorization of NCLB and support for increased accountability in our public schools system. And finally, we have NEA President Reg’s Weaver’s response in USA Today, where he claims our students are worse off today than they were five years ago when NCLB was signed into law. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/opposing-view-k.html?csp=34
Obviously, Weaver’s sentiments are not like the others. Surprisingly, both USA Today and WaPo have written articles recently about some of the shortcomings of NCLB. Both entered into their commentaries with their eyes wide open, knowing the strengths and weaknesses. And both came away calling for a continuation of the law, recognizing the long-term benefit of increased accountability and a commitment to boosting student achievement across the board.
The past few months have provided all involved in education reform the opportunity to identify ways to strengthen NCLB. How can we make assessment more meaningful? How do we cultivate and support effective teachers? How do we ensure our kids are leaving school with the skills they need to succeed in life? How do we truly improve our K-12 system?
All good questions. All questions that deserve strong public debate and meaningful consideration by key stakeholders. And all questions that should be front and center when communicating on the needs of NCLB 2.0.
Yet, despite these needed discussions, Weaver decided to play the same ole record of opposition. He says school administrators are saying teaching science is a waste of time, which is laughable since science assessments will be introduced nationally next year, joining our reading and math tests. We’re giving subjects other than math and reading short shrift, he says, at a time when states and school districts are investing major energies into STEM education efforts and relevant high school instruction. And then the king of urban legends — our focus on student achievement doesn’t improve student learning.
Some rhetoric just gets stale before its time, and that is definitely the case here. Weaver represents nearly 3 million teachers across the nation. Those teachers deserve better. They deserve more. They deserve a singular focus on how they can help improve NCLB, improve the quality of teaching in the United States, and improve the professionalism of the profession. That only happens when you are committed to improve, and when you are committed to have that improvement measured, analyzed, and shared across the industry. Accountability is the key to all.
Instead of fretting and grousing about a law passed five years ago, NEA should be focused on improvements that benefit their teachers and benefit their schools. Weaver should be talking about how NEA would want to see teachers evaluated and how best to tie student achievement to teacher effectiveness. The rhetorical focus should be on what can and should happen, not on what did or did not happen.
One of these things clearly doesn’t belong. Weaver is trying to rehash the educational skirmishes of 2001 that NEA and its breathren lost. USA Today and WaPo are talking about moving forward and improving a well-intentioned law. The latter is the only way we can get to the sunny days of NCLB 2.0 Street.
So let’s look at those three articles. First we have an editorial in the Aug. 7 Washington Post calling for reauthorization of NCLB, with a particular focus on Congressman George Miller’s recent comments of his push to improve NCLB. Second, we have an editorial in USA Today the day before, also calling for the reauthorization of NCLB and support for increased accountability in our public schools system. And finally, we have NEA President Reg’s Weaver’s response in USA Today, where he claims our students are worse off today than they were five years ago when NCLB was signed into law. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/opposing-view-k.html?csp=34
Obviously, Weaver’s sentiments are not like the others. Surprisingly, both USA Today and WaPo have written articles recently about some of the shortcomings of NCLB. Both entered into their commentaries with their eyes wide open, knowing the strengths and weaknesses. And both came away calling for a continuation of the law, recognizing the long-term benefit of increased accountability and a commitment to boosting student achievement across the board.
The past few months have provided all involved in education reform the opportunity to identify ways to strengthen NCLB. How can we make assessment more meaningful? How do we cultivate and support effective teachers? How do we ensure our kids are leaving school with the skills they need to succeed in life? How do we truly improve our K-12 system?
All good questions. All questions that deserve strong public debate and meaningful consideration by key stakeholders. And all questions that should be front and center when communicating on the needs of NCLB 2.0.
Yet, despite these needed discussions, Weaver decided to play the same ole record of opposition. He says school administrators are saying teaching science is a waste of time, which is laughable since science assessments will be introduced nationally next year, joining our reading and math tests. We’re giving subjects other than math and reading short shrift, he says, at a time when states and school districts are investing major energies into STEM education efforts and relevant high school instruction. And then the king of urban legends — our focus on student achievement doesn’t improve student learning.
Some rhetoric just gets stale before its time, and that is definitely the case here. Weaver represents nearly 3 million teachers across the nation. Those teachers deserve better. They deserve more. They deserve a singular focus on how they can help improve NCLB, improve the quality of teaching in the United States, and improve the professionalism of the profession. That only happens when you are committed to improve, and when you are committed to have that improvement measured, analyzed, and shared across the industry. Accountability is the key to all.
Instead of fretting and grousing about a law passed five years ago, NEA should be focused on improvements that benefit their teachers and benefit their schools. Weaver should be talking about how NEA would want to see teachers evaluated and how best to tie student achievement to teacher effectiveness. The rhetorical focus should be on what can and should happen, not on what did or did not happen.
One of these things clearly doesn’t belong. Weaver is trying to rehash the educational skirmishes of 2001 that NEA and its breathren lost. USA Today and WaPo are talking about moving forward and improving a well-intentioned law. The latter is the only way we can get to the sunny days of NCLB 2.0 Street.
Telling a Good Story
We’re all familiar with the phrase, “if it bleeds, it leads.” The thought behind it is if something horrible happens (particularly something horrible with great art), then it is front-page worthy. A tragedy makes great news. Scandal makes great copy. An official getting caught doing something wrong is a great news hook.
Over at This Week in Education, Alexander Russo has a list of the education-related news stories from the past month (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/thisweekineducation/upload/2007/05/big_stories_of_the_month/May%202007%20News%20%26%20TWIE%20Posts.doc) It should come as no surprise that this list is full of scandal, wrongdoing, and general negativity. NCLB reauthorization and Capitol Hill hearings figure prominently, as do schools closing, programs being abandoned, and teachers being fired. There are some exceptions, but pointing out the failings in our education system seems to be driving education coverage as a whole. And Eduflack is just as guilty.
Are there no “good” stories out there on education reform? I’ll be honest, I’ve been struggling for the last week to find some examples of reform done good anywhere. Maybe it is the end of the school year. Maybe folks have tired of education issues for now. Maybe the current NCLB struggles have sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. But I am desparate for a good story.
Why should we care? Don’t we have an obligation to seek the truth? With taxpayer dollars going into education reform, isn’t it a moral imperative that keep a watchful eye on the field and point out where we take a wrong step or where we may be headed down a rabbit hole we simply cannot emerge from?
At the end of the day, communications is good storytelling. You need a protagonist. You need a challenge he is trying to overcome. You need obstables that may prevent him from succeeding. And then you need SUCCESS. Take a look at any good children’s book or Disney movie, and you’ll see those steps are the key to telling any good story. Likewise, they are the key to effectively communicating education reform.
I’ll beat the dead horse. Let’s take Reading First as our example. The U.S. Department of Education can clamor about longitudinal research statistics and disagregated data until they are blue in the face. The most successful RF story is one President Bush told several years ago at a town hall meeting at NIH. He introduced a teacher from the South. Her class was struggling. Virtually no students were reading at grade level. School district was poor. Students weren’t necessarily getting the encouragement and support they needed from home. But this teacher was determined they would read. She implemented scientifically based reading instruction, knowing the research showed it would work with kids like hers. She provided one-to-one interventions when necessary. Over time, she started to see the results. Soon, all of her kids were reading. They had found a passion for learning. They had an opportunity to succeed in both school and life. The could achieve … thanks to Reading First and scientifically based reading.
Sure, it may be a little sappy. But personalization and storytelling make it compelling. And it talks about complex policy in a way the average American can understand. And it stays positive. There may be challenges. There may be obstacles. But our protagonist perseveres. That’s successful communication, and that’s a story many of us would want to read each morning with our coffee (or Diet Coke).
Reading First: Congressional Punching Bag?
Reading skills are non-negotiables when it comes to student achievement. If you can’t read at grade level by fourth grade, academic struggles start to expand exponentially. Kids start falling behind in math, social studies, science, and every subject in between. You can’t learn if you can’t read. And you certainly can’t succeed without reading.
Sure, we all know this. And Eduflack has written until he has been blue in the knuckles about the fact that Reading First works. Putting research-proven instruction in the classroom works. And successful implementation of SBRR boosts student achievement. No ifs, ands, or buts.
That’s why it is so disheartening to see members of Congress — our elected representatives — to continue to use Reading First as a PR punching bag. Need to make a rhetorical point? Attack RF. Need to gain PR attention? Attack RF. Want to secure some extra federal dollars for the folks back home? Attack RF.
In previous postings, I’ve commended Secretary Spellings for pointing out the error in Chairman Obey’s RF-slashing ways, reminding him of how much he would cost the good people of Wisconsin. Madame Secretary, it’s now time to step up and remind the good people of your home state of the same. The Texas Congressional delegation has come out swinging.
Late last week, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas got an amendment passed in the House that cuts nearly $50 million more from Reading First. Not huge money, no, but a symbolic stroke that sends the wrong message to her constituents in the greater Dallas Metroplex. In Dallas, reading must no longer be fundamental.
Johnson’s reasoning — she wanted level funding for the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education program. Read her press release (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/07192007a.html) and she is proud of the new funding she has secured, in an attempt to restore level funding for social skills training. But notice she never says what pot of money she is taking from? Don’t want to tell those kids or their parents in Dallas or DeSoto that you’ve just taken away money for that reading coach, huh?
I don’t doubt that it is important to teach kids that drugs are wrong. But isn’t it more important for kids to be able to read the brochures and websites promoting safe schools? Shouldn’t a child be able to read a label to know its drugs, and not candy? Of course.
As Congress looks to reauthorize NCLB, I’ve got a novel approach to NCLB PR and marketing. Let’s focus on the positive. Let’s talk about results. Let’s key in on replicable programs that can be implemented in schools and classrooms around the nation. It’s time to let Reading First stand on its achievement merits, and not on its administrative mis-steps.
It may very well be important to level fund safe schools. But what message do you send to schools, advocates, and the education community when you are doing it at the expense of a program that has already been slashed nearly 40 percent? And when you do it from a program that is proven effective?
There’s $63 billion currently in the proposed Education budget. How many of those dollars are earmarked for programs that are proven to work? How many of those dollars are going to programs that are essential building blocks for every child, in every school, in every community across the country? Reading First needs to stop being a rhetorical punching bag for the doubters and the critics. It is time for RF to hit back.
How Do I Rank?
We all like to know how we are doing, particularly compared with others. The cornerstone of NCLB is assessment, providing the tools so we can compare our schools with those in the next district or the next state. But what do rankings really say? How effective a communication tool are school rankings?
Today’s WaPo has a number of respected colleges and universities calling for major changes in the ever-popular US News & World Report college rankings. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900665.html At the same time, Newsweek magazine announces it Top 100 high schools. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18757087/site/newsweek/
As for Eduflack, I went to a West Virginia high school who’s experience with the Newsweek rankings is limited to receiving the High Schools issue each year. But I also graduated from U.Va., regularly rated the top public university of the nation. So I’ve been part of the best of times and the worst of times, if you will.
Such rankings, like all data, have their merits if scientifically sound and used properly. And such rankings, like any communications tool, can be effective if communicated appropriately. How do we do it?
1. Use it to support the overall message. Students aren’t attending a college because of its ranking. They want a good school that provides for their academic and social needs. They visit campus, they like what they see. When the rankings come, it validates the decision. It supports the belief that X College is a good school, a school worth attending. A student feels good about the choice because USNWR (and the respected folks who create their rankings) have agreed with their view of X College. It comes with a seal of approval, and a seal that teachers, parents, and guidance counselors respect.
2. Use it aspirationally. Rankings are motivation. Want to rise from third to second tier in regional colleges? See who is in the second tier and try to emulate their programs and their marketing. Same goes for high schools. Enhance AP or IB offerings. Mirror what those above you are doing. The best thing about such rankings is they provide a spotlight on best practices, practices that our K-16 system desperately needs.
3. Promote, promote, promote. Everyone believes they are doing a good job. And everyone wants to be recognized for it. But those schools that “rate” do so because they know how to effectively market their goals, they actions, and their successes. Such rankings are an honor you must seek. Look at the Newsweek high school rankings. For months, Jay Matthews has been soliciting recommendations of schools who are doing it right, interesting schools that could be featured as part of the Top High Schools issue. Part of any school improvement plan, whether it be K-12 or higher ed, should be effective marketing and communications.
Yes, some will say it sends the wrong message to rank high schools, particularly since most students don’t have a choice where they attend. And others will agree with the college prezes that IHEs shouldn’t be using USNWR to promote their institutions. But both can be a valuable communications tool. And as we look to improve our schools, we can use every piece of data and information we can get, particularly those schools that are doing it right.
<a href=”http://technorati.com/claim/tfumsfiijg” rel=”me”>Technorati Profile</a>
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 