Eduflack is just sick of NCLB bashing. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it. How can anyone be against boosting student performance, ensuring that what works is what is used in our classrooms, that teachers are qualified to teach, and that we actually measure how effective we are? This should be a no-brainer. Folks should be lining up 100 at a time to ensure that NCLB is implemented with fidelity in their school and in every school across the country. A high-quality education is the greatest gift anyone can receive. And everyone should receive it.
That said, I felt a warmness in my heart yesterday when I saw the launch of NCLB Works! For those who have missed it, check it out at http://www.biz4achievement.org/take_action/support.php.
For now, let’s give the media the benefit of the doubt that they will give the creation of this group the media attention it deserves. After all, NCLB critics seem to get banner headlines and 20 inches whenever they want to grouse about the law. Only seems fair that a group with this gravitas, coming together to “reauthorize and strengthen No Child Left Behind,” should garner equal time.
Regardless, the NCLB Works! initiative deserves some early round high marks. Based on the preliminary stages, it is clear that the group’s organizers get it, at least communications-wise. Why?
* They assembled a broad coalition of business, policy, civil rights, and community groups, erecting a large tent to show the genuine, large-scale support for NCLB’s goals
* They offer clear messaging. NCLB Works! has nailed their eight theses to the schoolhouse door. Clear goals. Goals that touch multiple constituencies. Goals that are both achievable and necessary.
* They’re starting to personalize the story. By gathering and distributing success stories, NCLB Works! is moving this from a debate of researchers to a discussion of the people. They remember that at the end of the day, NCLB succeeds when kids achieve.
Eduflack gives them a gold star for their communications prep work. Now let’s see how they perform in the lightning round. It’s one thing to assemble a strong introduction, as they have. The real communications challenge is how they move this forward. How do they boost their ranks of supporters? How do they get the media and policymakers to take notice and act on their recommendations? How do they ensure that NCLB is strengthened? How do they cement NCLB’s legacy as a driver of student improvement and long-term academic success?
Looking at its roster of members, NCLB Works! is definitely up to the rhetorical and political challenge. And I bet there are many others (including Eduflack) who are willing and eager to raise a flag for the cause.
PR
2 + 2 = controversy
Sometimes, it just isn’t as simple as two plus two. Case in point, the current brouhaha down in Texas, where the State Board of Education is rejecting the third grade Everyday Mathematics program. The program currently has 20 percent marketshare in Texas, and its been credited with turning around the math scores in New York City’s public schools. Despite that, Texas is expelling the program, citing its failure to prepare kids for college.
The full story is in the New York Sun — http://www.nysun.com/article/66711 — courtesy of <a href="http://www.educationnews.org.
Texas”>www.educationnews.org.
Texas educators should be allowed to do what they think is right for Texas students. Just because it works in New York or anywhere else doesn’t mean it will work in the Lone Star State. Sometimes, what happens in New York needs to stay in New York.
Be clear, we do know it is working in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein will clearly tell you that, as will the folks who decided the Broad Prize this year. And NYC’s math scores have improved since the curriculum was implemented almost five years. Both opinion and the data seem to point to the effectiveness of the program, at least in the Big Apple.
What makes this interesting, particularly from a communications perspective, is WHY folks are standing up in opposition to Everyday Mathematics. It comes down to two issues — rigor and readiness.
Rigor, of course, is the new buzz word. Here at the end of 2007, it is now being used in place of scientifically or evidence based. Called progressive or fuzzy, Everyday Math is getting caught in the crosshairs of the math wars (a far more dastardly battle than any reading war skirmish). Funny that, since it comes from McGraw Hill, the publisher usually beaten up for its overemphasis on research and methodology for its Open Court reading programs.
Regardless, the U.S. Department of Education, according to the Sun, judged “Everyday Math more effective than some more traditional programs but calling its impact still just “potentially” positive.” So it must have some rigor to pass IES’ WWC filters.
So we move on to readiness. The public criticism is that Everyday Math is not preparing kids for college. Some Texas officials rejected it because the book doesn’t include multiplication tables. And an NYU computer science professor has attacked the curriculum for not preparing kids for the types of college courses he teaches.
Eduflack is the first to recognize that college readiness is all the rage these days. But how many of our third graders are planning on matriculating to postsecondary institutions this coming fall? Are third-grade math courses designed to prepare us for the rigors of college, or the rigors of middle school?
Yes, states and school districts should be given the flexibility to do what is best for their students. Even in NYC, Klein has provided waivers to those schools looking to use an alternative elementary school math curriculum. But when we attack third grade textbooks on the college readiness issue, aren’t we starting to play Chicken Little?
College readiness is an important, even a critical, issue for our nation’s public schools. But if we use it as a rhetorical strawman to turn back each and every program, curriculum, and initiative we oppose, we remove the soul and value of the issue. Sure, everything from preK on in some way gets our kids ready for college. They are building blocks of learning. Does this now mean that if don’t provide our kindergartners with phonics and phonemic awareness, we are not effectively preparing them for college? Technically, yes, but rhetorically, of course not.
Students become math-ready for college by taking Algebra, Algebra II, geometry, and trig in their middle and high schools. Third grade prepares some of the building blocks to get there, but even the most successful, beyond this world third-grade curriculum will not make today’s average nine-year-old college ready. It doesn’t take a math Ph.D. to see that.
The Texas State Board of Education should be making sure that its elementary school mathbooks are providing the foundations every kid needs to succeed. If not, stand up and say so and propose a better solution. If Everyday Math isn’t cutting it for Texas kids, just say it isn’t the best choice for Texas classrooms. That’s the Board’s prerogative and their responsibility. But do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, we aren’t too far from hearing that this Play-Doh may not be a college-ready supplemental learning tool.
The full story is in the New York Sun — http://www.nysun.com/article/66711 — courtesy of <a href="http://www.educationnews.org.
Texas”>www.educationnews.org.
Texas educators should be allowed to do what they think is right for Texas students. Just because it works in New York or anywhere else doesn’t mean it will work in the Lone Star State. Sometimes, what happens in New York needs to stay in New York.
Be clear, we do know it is working in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein will clearly tell you that, as will the folks who decided the Broad Prize this year. And NYC’s math scores have improved since the curriculum was implemented almost five years. Both opinion and the data seem to point to the effectiveness of the program, at least in the Big Apple.
What makes this interesting, particularly from a communications perspective, is WHY folks are standing up in opposition to Everyday Mathematics. It comes down to two issues — rigor and readiness.
Rigor, of course, is the new buzz word. Here at the end of 2007, it is now being used in place of scientifically or evidence based. Called progressive or fuzzy, Everyday Math is getting caught in the crosshairs of the math wars (a far more dastardly battle than any reading war skirmish). Funny that, since it comes from McGraw Hill, the publisher usually beaten up for its overemphasis on research and methodology for its Open Court reading programs.
Regardless, the U.S. Department of Education, according to the Sun, judged “Everyday Math more effective than some more traditional programs but calling its impact still just “potentially” positive.” So it must have some rigor to pass IES’ WWC filters.
So we move on to readiness. The public criticism is that Everyday Math is not preparing kids for college. Some Texas officials rejected it because the book doesn’t include multiplication tables. And an NYU computer science professor has attacked the curriculum for not preparing kids for the types of college courses he teaches.
Eduflack is the first to recognize that college readiness is all the rage these days. But how many of our third graders are planning on matriculating to postsecondary institutions this coming fall? Are third-grade math courses designed to prepare us for the rigors of college, or the rigors of middle school?
Yes, states and school districts should be given the flexibility to do what is best for their students. Even in NYC, Klein has provided waivers to those schools looking to use an alternative elementary school math curriculum. But when we attack third grade textbooks on the college readiness issue, aren’t we starting to play Chicken Little?
College readiness is an important, even a critical, issue for our nation’s public schools. But if we use it as a rhetorical strawman to turn back each and every program, curriculum, and initiative we oppose, we remove the soul and value of the issue. Sure, everything from preK on in some way gets our kids ready for college. They are building blocks of learning. Does this now mean that if don’t provide our kindergartners with phonics and phonemic awareness, we are not effectively preparing them for college? Technically, yes, but rhetorically, of course not.
Students become math-ready for college by taking Algebra, Algebra II, geometry, and trig in their middle and high schools. Third grade prepares some of the building blocks to get there, but even the most successful, beyond this world third-grade curriculum will not make today’s average nine-year-old college ready. It doesn’t take a math Ph.D. to see that.
The Texas State Board of Education should be making sure that its elementary school mathbooks are providing the foundations every kid needs to succeed. If not, stand up and say so and propose a better solution. If Everyday Math isn’t cutting it for Texas kids, just say it isn’t the best choice for Texas classrooms. That’s the Board’s prerogative and their responsibility. But do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, we aren’t too far from hearing that this Play-Doh may not be a college-ready supplemental learning tool.
NCLB: The Great Debate?
We’re seven months from the presidential primaries. We’re 16 months from the 2008 presidential election. So it only makes sense that last night was the “first” Democratic presidential debate. (Those other three or four were just pre-season, I suppose). Last night’s questions came in from “regular folks” through YouTube. And if you believe Ed in ’08’s numbers, Of the nearly 3,000 questions that were submitted, 306 of them were about education.
During the two-hour debate, one education-focused question was actually raised. The loaded softball in question — “Would you scrap or revise the No Child Left Behind program?” It’s a wonder CNN found time for it, what with the snowman concerned about global warming and all.
Eduflack will forget, for a second, that the questioner didn’t leave the candidates the option to stand up for the law, particularly since half the folks on the stage voted FOR it back in 2002. And we’ll try to ignore the fact that only three candidates were able to answer the question, and that the one that defended the law (Chris Dodd) wasn’t actually asked to chime in (and was almost prevented from answering).
After listening to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson take up most of the “education time,” I must say I am truly disenchanted by the governor from the Land of Enchantment. Either he doesn’t understand NCLB or he is distorting it for his own purposes. Either way, it demonstrates how far Spellings & Co. need to go to effectively market and promote the federal education law. ED is losing the PR battle on NCLB, and they continue to let the law’s critics define the terms of debate. Last night was the perfect example.
So how exactly did Richardson answer the NCLB question? He raised four key points. First, he attacked NCLB for taking funding away from low-performing districts and schools. What? If anything, NCLB — through SES, Reading First, and other initiatives — is doing the opposite. It is putting additional funding in those schools that need it the most. But Richardson seems to have bought into the status quo’s red herring that NCLB is a punitive tool only.
Second, he calls for a minimum teacher salary of $40,000. I won’t quibble with him on this. Effective teachers should be far better paid than they are now. But with all of the crowing that NCLB has stripped local control from what was perceived as a local issue, is he honestly suggesting the federal government should get involved in setting teacher pay scales for school districts? How does that work with current collective bargaining agreements?
Third, he said we need to focus on science and math and do what is needed to unlock the minds of those students who are struggling in those subjects. Hear, hear! NCLB does that, and talk of NCLB 2.0 calls for greater investment and attention to STEM issues. I would ask though, governor, how you propose to identify the children whose minds are in need of unlocking without the strong assessments called for under NCLB? We need strong, research-based assessments to ensure all students are learning the skills they need to succeed after they leave the schoolhouse doors.
And the final point? This closer that is supposed to sum up his position and make the strongest case possible? We need more music, dancing, and sculpture classes in our schools. Pardon me as I shake the bewilderment from my head. On a daily basis, we have members of Congress seeking to slash spending for reading — a non-negotiable educational building block — and the good governor wants to make sure we’re teaching Pottery Wheel 101?
If we’re going to debate education, and I mean truly debate education, let’s focus on the real issues of NCLB. Let’s hear where the candidates stand on research-based instruction. On the need for effective teaching. On the benefits of continuous assessment and instructional improvement. On data collection. On content-rich professional development. And on the need for measurable, demonstrable student achievement, the sort of achievement that ensures every child has the chance to succeed in school and in life. That would be a debate I’d pay to see, and that would be one that would actually educate the voters and the Congress on educational priorities.
There was one bright spot to the sad two minutes devoted to education last night. As Senators Clinton and Obama looked the other way on the question, Chris Dodd bravely stated, “Accountability is very important.” Couldn’t have said it any better, Senator. I just hope your colleagues on the rostrum heard you.
Jumpstarting a Dialogue?
We often hear about action for action’s sake, but how often do we act for the benefit of rhetoric? Apparently, that’s what LA Mayor Villariagosa is saying regarding his attempt to take over LAUSD. In today’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-lausd19may19,1,3072284.story?coll=la-news-learning&ctrack=3&cset=true) the LA Mayor talks about dropping his bid for takeover, rewriting history by saying his intent was to “provide a framework for dialogue.”
I’ll be the first to say that dialogue is good. But I am a firm believer that you use rhetoric to advance action. Pick the right words, the right spokespeople, and understand the right audiences, and you can drive the right action. Nowhere is that more true than in education reform. Our goal should not be talk. Our goal should be to change public behavior (and improve student achievement) through effective communication.
I respect Villariagosa’s attempt to save face in what was a difficult situation. But when we see the effectiveness of Bloomberg in NYC, or Fenty’s undeterred effort to take over DCPS, do we honestly think either the NYC or DC Mayors would be happy knowing that they had simply provided a “framework for dialogue?” Of course not.
In the end of the day, Villariagosa forgot an important key to reform communications — build a strong cadre of supporters and advocates. At times, it appeared he was fighting a one-man fight. Fighting the school board. Fighting the union. Fighting just about anyone who stood for the status quo. And at the end of the day, he paid the price. A loss in court, a loss of stakeholder support, and ultimately a loss of public trust.
Lost in the discussion is the fact that LAUSD has some strong reforms they can boast of, particularly the recent successes of Green Dot Schools. There, they have a reform focused on students and teachers, focused on academic success, and focused on strong communications and ally building in the community. And its successes have helped it weather public rhetorical opposition from the unions and other sources.
The aborted takeover of LAUSD was a defeat for Villariagosa, no matter how he tries to publicly spin it. But it teaches an important lesson to many of today’s education reformers. Reform can’t be personal. This isn’t about what a particular mayor, a particular superintendent, a particular corporate leader, or a particular researcher want. As we have seen from LAUSD and from the Reading First and NCLB hearings, personalities can be torn down. Individual personalities are easy targets. Find a hole in their rhetoric, their background, or their public persona, and you can turn back their ideas.
For such reforms to be truly successful, they need to focus on those who are being helped, those who are ultimately benefiting. Instead of hearing what Villariagosa would do if he won and how he would change the school board and who he would hire, we should have been hearing about that child in Southcentral LA who would finally have that chance to succeed under a streamlined system. Let’s hear how reform would impact the teachers and the students, not how it would bolster the power of the mayor.
Yes, LA can teach many of our urban districts a great deal. Hopefully, Mayor Fenty is listening as he prepares to wage a public battle to get his school takeover plan through Congress. Let’s hear how it will benefit DC schoolchildren and educators, and not how it will enhance the Mayor’s legacybuilding efforts. In districts like DCPS and LAUSD, simply initiating a dialogue is not enough. Communication without reform is simply talking to maintain the status quo. Should that really be a goal … or an achievement to celebrate?
It Takes More Than a Village …
I’m the first to admit it. Eduflack is results-focused. When it comes to communications, does it really matter what you say or how you say it if it doesn’t contribute to meeting your overall strategic goals? And when it comes to education reform, do the best of ideas matter if they don’t improve student achievement? Good intentions only get you so far. We measure results, effectiveness, and success.
But sometimes, we do need to take a step back. And Rick Hess reminded us of that earlier this week in his commentary piece in The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101927.html. For those who missed it, Hess looked at the early days of the Michelle Rhee administration at DC Public Schools, giving her strong marks for both intent and results.
Hess really grabs the issue of education reform by the throat with his opening paragraph:
One bit of the conventional wisdom hampering school reformers is the belief that if superintendents taking over troubled districts just concentrate on curriculum, instruction and “best practices,” everything else will sort itself out. This myth has been promoted by education professors and others who think large-scale reform entails simply figuring out what a good classroom looks like and then replicating it as necessary.
I’m a suscriber to such conventional wisdom, at least as it relates to students. Give a teacher a research-proven curriculum and an understanding and appreciation of best practices, and you can get students to achieve. Apply what we know works — what we know is effective in classrooms like ours — and virtually every student in the class has the opportunity to succeed.
Of course, there are classrooms and then there are central offices. Hess reminds us of that. Before a superintendent can even think about how to get the evidence-based curriculum, the effective teachers, and the best practices into the classroom, he or she must deal with those management components we often forget about. Personnel and textbook distribution and bureaucracy and broken systems and a faculty that has lost faith in any missive or idea coming from the central office.
School districts like DCPS — those districts that are in real need of reform and improvement — are not just one step away from the promised land. One can’t just drop in a new SBRR curriculum or an effective teacher provision and assume that AYP will be met by all from that point forward. These schools are in trouble, and are in need of wholesale improvement and comprehensive reform. That’s why the keys are being turned over to a reformer in the first place.
At the end of the day, Hess is saying that the achievement we seek can’t be truly gained until we undergo a culture change. And nothing could be more true. Some may chide Rhee or Mayor Fenty for what are seen as PR stunts. And, yes, some of them are. But what Rhee and her team seem to realize is that they need to change the way DCPS thinks and acts if they are to deliver the student achievement gains we all seek and expect.
Yes, Rhee’s success is going to be based on how well DC’s students achieve. Yes, we expect test scores to increase in short order. But we also can’t expect all of DC’s teachers and parents to follow Rhee into battle if they don’t have textbooks, don’t get paychecks on time, and have lost confidence in the administration. Effective reform requires more than just the village. Both Rhee and Hess recognize that.
Setting a Reading Example
Effective communications is not only about words, it is about actions and behaviors. We have all heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. And it is particularly true with young people. Children mimic adults. They watch us closely and try do what we do — the good, the bad, and the ugly.
This is particularly true in teaching children to read. Parents of young children are taught to expose their youngsters to books. Show them how to hold a book. Teach them one reads left to right, and front to back. And most importantly, let them see you read — a book, a magazine, a newspaper anything.
In a field where modeling promising practices is king, this seems like a no-brainer. Non-verbal communications is a key component in teaching our children.
That’s why it was so discouraging to see the latest AP-Ipsos poll that found one in four adults read no books at all in the past year. And on the whole, the average American read four books a year. Startling — 25 percent of adults couldn’t bother to read one piece of chick lit, one Harry Potter, or entry from the NY Times best seller list.
Is it any wonder that 40 percent of fourth graders can’t read at grade level? Of those who struggle to master basic reading skills, how many do you think see parents or siblings or neighbors reading at home? Do we honestly think there is no correlation between the absence of reading in adults and the struggles of reading in kids?
Like it or not, parents are the first, last, and most impactful teacher a child ever has. Because of this, we have an obligation to ensure all children have access to the education and opportunity needed to succeed in this 21st century economy. And one can’t get on that path without an ability to read.
I know, I’m up on the Eduflack soapbox. And it can get lonely up here. But it is just too important not to scream into the wind on this topic yet again. I’ll yield the microphone if you pick up a book. Young eyes are on us all.
This is particularly true in teaching children to read. Parents of young children are taught to expose their youngsters to books. Show them how to hold a book. Teach them one reads left to right, and front to back. And most importantly, let them see you read — a book, a magazine, a newspaper anything.
In a field where modeling promising practices is king, this seems like a no-brainer. Non-verbal communications is a key component in teaching our children.
That’s why it was so discouraging to see the latest AP-Ipsos poll that found one in four adults read no books at all in the past year. And on the whole, the average American read four books a year. Startling — 25 percent of adults couldn’t bother to read one piece of chick lit, one Harry Potter, or entry from the NY Times best seller list.
Is it any wonder that 40 percent of fourth graders can’t read at grade level? Of those who struggle to master basic reading skills, how many do you think see parents or siblings or neighbors reading at home? Do we honestly think there is no correlation between the absence of reading in adults and the struggles of reading in kids?
Like it or not, parents are the first, last, and most impactful teacher a child ever has. Because of this, we have an obligation to ensure all children have access to the education and opportunity needed to succeed in this 21st century economy. And one can’t get on that path without an ability to read.
I know, I’m up on the Eduflack soapbox. And it can get lonely up here. But it is just too important not to scream into the wind on this topic yet again. I’ll yield the microphone if you pick up a book. Young eyes are on us all.
Reading Between the NCLB Lines
As most in the education reform world know by now, yesterday House Education Committee Chairman George Miller spoke on his thoughts about NCLB. The highlights — NCLB will be reauthorized, NCLB will be revised and improved, and Miller has heard the “teaching to the test” critics. The Washington Post has the full story — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html?hpid=sec-education
All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date. The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so. Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law. If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.
The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words. While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement. He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.
Why is this so interesting to Eduflack? Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools. Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade. We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way. For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments.
But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach. Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools. How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests? How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later? These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.
Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words. As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation. That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.
Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements. Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom. With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it.
All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date. The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so. Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law. If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.
The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words. While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement. He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.
Why is this so interesting to Eduflack? Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools. Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade. We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way. For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments.
But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach. Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools. How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests? How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later? These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.
Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words. As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation. That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.
Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements. Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom. With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it.
Making “Public” a Dirty Word?
For decades, America used to crow about its public school system. We were the model that other nations aspired to. From kindergarten through college graduation, public schools were meant to stand as a symbol of equal education and opportunity.
Today, however, the criticism over public schools is growing louder and louder. The success of charter schools has further highlighted the flaws in some urban districts. Vouchers are now allowing parents to opt out of the public school system in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Washington DC, and throughout Florida. And NCLB has more parents and communities scrutinizing those public schools that fail to make AYP and fail to provide a high-quality, effective education to all.
So it is no surprise it has come to this. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “public” is now a dirty word when talking about our local schools. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07192/800808-298.stm Pittsburgh Public Schools is dropping “public” from its name, in an attempt to “brighten and strengthen” its image.
Eduflack is all for school districts doing what is necessary, rhetorically, to improve their image. Schools need to instill confidence in the teachers, students, and families that are part of the school community. We need to believe in the educators and leaders who head our schools. And we need to trust our children are getting the high-quality, effective education that our taxpayer dollars are funding.
Does anyone believe that dropping the “public” improves the quality of education, or even the perception of the quality of education? Does the franchise-ination of school names, as Pittsburgh Public Schools proposes, really do anything to improve the schools? Of course not.
Yes, schools should simplify the message and making sure their goals are clear to every and any stakeholder audience. That’s the only way you can successfully communicate reform. And I’m all for Pittsburgh’s new tagline — “Excellence for all.” Every student, including those in Pittsburgh, deserve excellent education and should be expected to demonstrate proficiency and excellence.
But you need more than a new tagline to improve your schools. Such rhetorical devices are useless if one is not adopting the reforms and improvements necessary to deliver on the promise. If Pittsburgh is promising excellence for all, it better be coming to the classroom with more than a tagline, a new logo, and a “streamlined” name for the school district. It better bring the instruction, the interventions, the measurement, and methods for improvement that are needed for any school district to truly excel.
Without such content commitments, this is nothing more than empty rhetoric. I appreciate that Pittsburgh officials believe that “public” has negative connotations with some. Based on the performance of many public schools over the past decade, it should. The most effective way to reverse that image is not with a new coat of paint or a new neon sign, though. The most effective way to communicate “public” schools in a positive way is to show real, lasting, meaningful student achievement. For our nation to succeed, we need to be proud of our public schools, not ashamed of them.
Getting Lost in the NCLB Wilderness
Is it possible to say all of the right things, but still fail in effectively communicating? It may sound hard, but it is quite easy. Don’t believe Eduflack? Just check out President Bush’s remarks to the 2007 Presidential Scholars yesterday.
The President picked a good venue for his remarks — a room full of high-achieving high school students. He brought with him ED Secretary Spellings, along with Republican members of Congress key to NCLB reauthorization. And he had a clear messaging platform — NCLB’s goals, what NCLB has achieved to date, and vision for NCLB 2.0.
And that messaging was strong.
* NCLB is bipartisan.
* “The federal government should expect results in return for the money it spends.”
* “The only way to determine whether a child is reading at grade level is to have accountability in our school systems.”
* “We’re making good progress.”
* “Our ability to compete in the 21st century depends upon educating children”
* “If a child needs extra help, there’s going to be money available to help that child.”
* “Strengthen math and science”
* “Extra funding for under-performing schools.”
* “We believe in local control of schools, you reform them, you fix them.”
Bush addressed his remarks to the students, their parents, and their teachers. He spoke of believing in students, supporting teachers, and improving our schools. The President was passionate about an issue he cared about (particularly when talking about the impact of SBRR on reading scores). And that’s where he should have stopped.
A broad audience. A relatively light and easy event. The President should have called it a day, and walked off the mound leaving the crowd with the broad rhetorical strokes that define the benefits of NCLB. Had he done so, it would have been a win. A strong “A” from the teachers in the crowd.
Instead, he kept speaking. Using his bully pulpit, he decided to further define NCLB in terms of school choice and vouchers. Important issues, yes. Volatile components of NCLB, for sure. But completely inappropriate for the audience, the venue, or the ultimate end game. Yes, it is important for the President to appease a key audience (his conservative base), particularly as Republicans are quickly jumping off the NCLB ship. But you need to address such concerns directly with the audience that holds them. By spending a third of his time focused on issues that appeal to a small, but vocal, segment of the education universe, he muddled his message and chipped away at his clear framing of the value of NCLB.
And the result of the tip of the hat to his conservative base? Nil. The criticisms of big government and the federalization of education still rang out in The Washington Post’s coverage of it. A golden opportunity to focus on the positive impact and long-term gains as a result of NCLB, yet the President still only scores the gentleman’s “C” for execution.
Speaking Locally, Thinking Nationally
To put it mildly, it’s no secret that state legislatures and local governments have been resistant to NCLB, particularly its accountability provisions. The reason is fairly simple. K-12 education has long been perceived as a local issue. Local school boards make curricular decisions, state legislatures set funding priorities, and all are focused on the educational needs at the very local of levels.
It’s only been in recent years that the federal role in K-12 has gained a spotlight. NCLB moved the feds from the role of funder to the role of active participant. Sure, the feds provide less than 10% of the money spent on education in this country. But it carries a big stick. NCLB provides a lot of new money if you’re willing to play ball, and poses the threat of pulling funding if you don’t play by the rules.
So yesterday’s vote at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ annual conference should come as no surprise. NCSL members rejected national education standards, even voluntary ones. Education Week has the story, as disappointing as it is. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/06/45ncsl_web.h26.html
We all know the great Tip O’Neill adage that all politics is local. That was surely the case for NCSL. In carefully chosen language, they embraced the notion of “rigorous state standards” and “individual state refinement of standards.” This should be no surprise. When you are a member of a state legislature, you want to keep the power in your hands. You want to be the one to write the standards, fund the standards, and evaluate the standards. It’s your best chance to control the outcomes, particularly if you are to be held accountable by your constituency.
No, Eduflack isn’t going to fault NCSL for defending its turf and speaking strongly on a key issue. For that they should be applauded. But I will take issue with, yet again, the attack on NCLB as a justification for the such a policy stance. So I issue a rhetorical challenge to all, stand up for what you believe in, without needing to tear down or tear into NCLB. It’s a great communications bogeyman, sure, but NCLB is not responsible for all that ills our schools, despite the urban legend.
Yes, we all know there is room for improvement in NCLB. We all know that many states have felt the financial sting of meeting the accountability standards in the law, with some seeing it as an unfunded mandate. But you also can’t ignore that Reading First has given the states more than $5 billion in additional funding to date to implement SBRR. And a quarter of that — more than $1 billion — was intended for stronger, more relevant teacher professional development.
Like it or not, local control is quickly intersecting with national expectations. Blame the “world is flat” economy, blame NAFTA, blame the little that has been done since we discovered we were a “Nation at Risk.” If we expect our kids to thrive once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time, living up to the expectations and standards of the local community is no longer enough.
Today’s students are being asked to compete with students across the state, across the nation, and around the world. Employers are looking for core competencies in all of their corporate locations. They expect employees in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, Hartford, and even Bangalore to bring the same skills and the same abilities. Our institutions of higher education are usually screening applicants with one master rubric. National standards (even the voluntary ones) are coming.
My K-12 years were spent in public schools in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and West Virginia. Did I notice the differences? You bet. Did I feel one state’s education was stronger than another’s? Of course.
More and more, we are becoming a transient society. Unlike generations past (even mine), it is now a rarity for a student to finish high school with the same cohort of students he or she started kindergarten with. A little sad, sure, but it is the reality. Whether NCLB is on the books or not, national education standards are an important tool in our changing education system and our evolving economy. They are the great equalizer, ensuring that a public education is worth the same in Alabama as it is in Oregon, the same in Nevada as it is in New York.
If we want a public education to mean something again, we need to restore its value and we need to quantify its impact. The era where one could say, “well it is good enough for <insert state here>” is over. This should be the new frontier, where we demonstrate that students in our state are outperforming those in our neighboring states. The only way that works is when we measure with the same ruler. Groups like NCSL should be a key part of the dialogue to choose the right national ruler; they shouldn’t be hiding it from those who really need a good measure.
It’s only been in recent years that the federal role in K-12 has gained a spotlight. NCLB moved the feds from the role of funder to the role of active participant. Sure, the feds provide less than 10% of the money spent on education in this country. But it carries a big stick. NCLB provides a lot of new money if you’re willing to play ball, and poses the threat of pulling funding if you don’t play by the rules.
So yesterday’s vote at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ annual conference should come as no surprise. NCSL members rejected national education standards, even voluntary ones. Education Week has the story, as disappointing as it is. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/06/45ncsl_web.h26.html
We all know the great Tip O’Neill adage that all politics is local. That was surely the case for NCSL. In carefully chosen language, they embraced the notion of “rigorous state standards” and “individual state refinement of standards.” This should be no surprise. When you are a member of a state legislature, you want to keep the power in your hands. You want to be the one to write the standards, fund the standards, and evaluate the standards. It’s your best chance to control the outcomes, particularly if you are to be held accountable by your constituency.
No, Eduflack isn’t going to fault NCSL for defending its turf and speaking strongly on a key issue. For that they should be applauded. But I will take issue with, yet again, the attack on NCLB as a justification for the such a policy stance. So I issue a rhetorical challenge to all, stand up for what you believe in, without needing to tear down or tear into NCLB. It’s a great communications bogeyman, sure, but NCLB is not responsible for all that ills our schools, despite the urban legend.
Yes, we all know there is room for improvement in NCLB. We all know that many states have felt the financial sting of meeting the accountability standards in the law, with some seeing it as an unfunded mandate. But you also can’t ignore that Reading First has given the states more than $5 billion in additional funding to date to implement SBRR. And a quarter of that — more than $1 billion — was intended for stronger, more relevant teacher professional development.
Like it or not, local control is quickly intersecting with national expectations. Blame the “world is flat” economy, blame NAFTA, blame the little that has been done since we discovered we were a “Nation at Risk.” If we expect our kids to thrive once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time, living up to the expectations and standards of the local community is no longer enough.
Today’s students are being asked to compete with students across the state, across the nation, and around the world. Employers are looking for core competencies in all of their corporate locations. They expect employees in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, Hartford, and even Bangalore to bring the same skills and the same abilities. Our institutions of higher education are usually screening applicants with one master rubric. National standards (even the voluntary ones) are coming.
My K-12 years were spent in public schools in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and West Virginia. Did I notice the differences? You bet. Did I feel one state’s education was stronger than another’s? Of course.
More and more, we are becoming a transient society. Unlike generations past (even mine), it is now a rarity for a student to finish high school with the same cohort of students he or she started kindergarten with. A little sad, sure, but it is the reality. Whether NCLB is on the books or not, national education standards are an important tool in our changing education system and our evolving economy. They are the great equalizer, ensuring that a public education is worth the same in Alabama as it is in Oregon, the same in Nevada as it is in New York.
If we want a public education to mean something again, we need to restore its value and we need to quantify its impact. The era where one could say, “well it is good enough for <insert state here>” is over. This should be the new frontier, where we demonstrate that students in our state are outperforming those in our neighboring states. The only way that works is when we measure with the same ruler. Groups like NCSL should be a key part of the dialogue to choose the right national ruler; they shouldn’t be hiding it from those who really need a good measure.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 