Presidential campaign

Let the Debate Begin

Eduflack John McCain, Obama, Presidential campaign

As promised yesterday, today we begin the presidential education debate.  First, a few of the ground rules.  To compare the two campaigns’ education platforms, we will be looking at campaign websites only.  Good friend and new media guru Geoff Livingston has said if you aren’t on the Web, you might as well be dead.  The Internet is now our go-to source for information and data; it is where we turn when we need to learn something.  So we’re just looking at what each candidate has put up on their official website.  If it isn’t important enough to post on the Web, then it needn’t be part of this debate.  So stump speeches, surrogate talking points, and the rest are important, so if you have them, submit them as comments and I’ll post them immediately.

Today, we will look at U.S. Sen. John McCain’s platform.  Tomorrow, it will be U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s turn.  Both of these looks will be factual only, with a tick-by-tick look at the issues and policies of importance.  Friday, we’ll put our analyst/critic/agitator hat back on and see where the commonalities and differences lie, along with what issues are most important to education reformers.
Let the games begin!

Educating Ourselves on the Candidates’ Education Platforms

Eduflack John McCain, Obama, Presidential campaign

I admit it, I am a gadget freak.  When the latest cell phone (I use a second generation iPhone) or laptop (currently working off the MacBook Air with the SSD) or TV comes out, I usually want it.  Eduwife has to talk me off the ledge, as we discuss whether I really need it and whether Eduson has a high chance of breaking it should I get it (for the record, he has broken three of my cell phones in the last year and a half, including that first-generation iPhone just last month).

I’m intrigued by technology.  With the iPhone, Apple has a terrific feature called the App Store, where you can add all sorts of random, odd, and useful functions to your phone.  I’ve got my EBay app (I’m an addict), Facebook (equally addictive), a Spanish phrase book, and both a slots and a blackjack game.
But I was really caught when I saw that one of the top downloaded applications for iPhone was one for Obama ’08.  It is intended to help those far younger and far more technologically savvy than I use their phones to get together, canvas together, and generally support the campaign together.  A support group for the true believers.
I was taken, though, with how clearly the Obama iPhone app laid out the policy platforms for Obama-Biden.  And it got me thinking.  We sit around and complain about how little education is being covered in this campaign, practically wetting ourselves when Gov, Sarah Palin mentioned education as an issue in last week’s vice presidential debate.  We reflect on and over-analyze a few throw-away lines at both of the conventions and on a policy speech issued by Obama in America’s heartland last month.  But where do the two candidates really stand on education issues?  What will their federal education agenda look like come winter of 2009?
So I’m going to veer off my regular course a little, set aside the opinion, and do a little relaying of facts.  Working from the websites (the prime communication vehicle for most orgs and individuals these days) of the two campaigns, we’re going to take a peek at their full education platforms.  Tomorrow, we’ll spotlight the education plans from Sen. John McCain.  Thursday, we’ll take a look at what Sen. Barack Obama has to offer.  Then on Friday, I’ll get back on my soapbox and opine away on who gets us where we need to go on education improvement.
Now’s the time to get your points in.  Want to make sure I pay attention to a particular idea?  Worried that a key policy isn’t fully articulated on the web?  Just want to get the right words in?  I’m just an email away — eduflack@eduflack.com.  Once my missives are posted, everyone is free to rip into me for being wrong, off course, a Kool-aid drinker, or a Pollyanna.  Don’t worry, you can’t be a good flack without the thickest of thick skin.
  

RF: Political Punching Bag

Eduflack Obama, Presidential campaign, Reading First, SBRR

By now, we’ve all come to accept that education issues just are not going to be major players in the presidential election.  We didn’t see it in the political primaries.  For the most part, we didn’t see it during the two national conventions.  And it is incredibly unlikely we will see it over the next six weeks.  As the nation struggles with economic issues, ongoing mortgage issues, and trillion-dollar financial market bailouts, education reform is just not a top-of-mind issue, particularly for those undecided voters that will determine the next President of the United States.

But sometimes — heck, most times — it is just too hard to not to hook a good red herring or not to throw a strong left hook at a political punching bag.  That is even true in education.  Don’t believe Eduflack?  Then you clearly missed Meet the Press this morning.
This AM, Tom Brokaw hosted a presidential debate autopsy with the senior strategists for Senators Obama and McCain. The discussion, as expected, was focused on economic policy, what the candidates thought of the expected financial bailout bill that will be unveiled by Congress tonight, and who is better suited to help the nation move forward from our current financial problems.  On Friday night, little time was spent discussing what programs would have to be cut if we were to pay for $700 billion in buyout and the added costs of new financial oversights, agencies, etc.  The issue came back around this morning on Meet the Press.
David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist and the primary architect of his incredible campaign, zeroed in on one program and one program in particular — Reading First.  While not citing it by name (and why not?, it would score him points in some sectors), Axelrod attacked the “boondoggle” of a reading program the Bush Administration has been funding, a program, he went on to say, “hasn’t helped a single kid.”
I understand the need for hyperbole and vitriol in a political campaign (in fact, I was once accused by a weekly rag of a newspaper for injecting the latter into a 1996 congressional campaign).  And in full disclosure, I have financially supported the Obama campaign, and have done so since before the first primary/caucus vote was cast in Iowa more than nine months ago.  But I must say, if that is the belief of the campaign, and if it reflects the plans for federal education moving forward, I am severely disappointed and quite a bit surprised.
Let’s set aside, for a moment, the fact that the $300 million or so currently being spent on Reading First will do little to fund the bailout or the billions of dollars in new programs and new initiatives being put forward.  The simple lack of understanding for Reading First and the impact it has had on our schools, as demonstrated by the talking point, shows that politics, and not results, can rule the day.
Eduflack would urge Axelrod — along with Obama education advisors Jon Schnur and Mike Johnston — to take a real look at RF and its impact on real schools and real kids.  Heck, let’s just take a look at the swing states that will determine the results on November 4.  Let’s look at RF’s impact in Pennsylvania.  In Ohio.  In West Virginia.  In Colorado.  In Florida.  Let’s even take a look at its impact in cities like Chicago and New York City, major hubs of Obama support.  Let’s place a careful eye on those schools, districts, and states where we’ve done what’s works and we’ve implemented scientifically based reading with fidelity, and we can see that Reading First has helped millions of kids.  And it could help millions more with better management, better oversight, better fidelity, and better support.
When presidential administrations change, we should look to build on the successes of the previous administration, fixing those programs and efforts that didn’t work, and ensuring our taxpayer dollars are wisely spent.  Spending federal education funding on programs that work is good public stewardship.  And scientifically based reading is such a program.  if we set aside the political packaging of RF, the core goals, the core intent, and the core outcomes of the program remain solid and should remain a national priority.
If Obama is serious about making sure every child has the math and science education needed to compete, he must first start by making sure every student is literate and can read at an appropriate grade level.  Scientifically based reading is the strongest, fastest, and only path to get us there.  It may not be a good campaign issue, but it is a damned good policy issue.

The Next Education President?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidents for Presidents!

Eduflack higher ed, John McCain, Presidential campaign

Every four years, we see swelling lists of presidential endorsers, those individuals and organizations that are backing a particular candidate.  Any savvy (or semi-savvy) political staffer (Eduflack included) knows the enormous value of such backing.  The right names signal support from those in the know.  Their endorsement can often bring buckets full of votes and contributions.

We get endorsements from business leaders, veterans, labor leaders, entertainers, other politicians, teachers, church leaders, environmentalists, Nobel Prize winners, past Cabinet officials, and just about any other group we can think of.  Those endorsers make a choice based on what they believe is best for the nation and best on those issues they are most passionate about.

Which makes a news item in today’s Inside Higher Education all that much more interesting.  Scott Jaschik reports on the president of the University of Florida endorsing John McCain.  (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/23/endorse)

Yes, UF President Bernie Machen’s endorsement of the Straight Talk Express is major news in higher education.  College presidents just don’t do such a thing.  Maybe they are above such politics.  Maybe there is too much at risk, with federal research dollars riding on presidential appointments.  Whatever the reason, it just isn’t done.  College presidents are supposed to be non-partisan and apolitical.  After all, there is more than enough campus politics to whet their appetites for a true political fight.

But it is the right thing to do?  As we consider presidential nominees, do the carpenters and the longshoremen and the WWII veterans and former secretaries of agriculture carry a stronger voice than college presidents?  Does the voice of a college president matter?

For the past six or seven months, the education community has been stammering and stuttering on the need for greater emphasis on education in the presidential elections.  We look at presidential education platforms, and many of them are chock full of details on students loans and college readiness.  We listen to speeches on the economy and job creation, and can’t shake the notion that colleges and universities are often the largest or second largest employer in their communities.

All that said, shouldn’t university presidents be coveted endorsements?  And more importantly, shouldn’t college presidents be on the record as to which candidate or candidates are strongest when it comes to student finances, college readiness, research dollars, or general support for our postsecondary institutions? 

As the son of a retired college president, I watched as my father carefully walked the nonpartisan college presidential line.  He worked successfully with governors and senators of both political parties, winning support and dollars for his institutions, regardless of what party was in power.  I knew, though, that he was also a community leader, and that people sought his perspective on the issues and candidates of the day (and it didn’t hurt that he is a presidential historian by training).  His endorsement could have helped local and state candidates.

That said, leaders like Bernie Machen or University of Miami President Donna Shalala (who has endorsed Clinton) should be the norm, not the exception.  If we want education to have a prime position in the debate, we need strong advocates and experts to step forward and ensure that education is at the table and heard in all corners of the room.  Any union official can tell you that happens when you endorse at the national scale.

So for all those college presidents, chancellors, system heads, and even K-12 superintendents watching Campaign 2008, take note.  If you want greater dollars invested in your schools, if you want more attention and resources devoted to your students, if you want your economic development investments noticed or your community programs emulated, you need to stand up and articulate what you believe in and what candidate best aligns with your mission and your successes to date.  You need to tell us what type of president will strengthen your institution and your community.  You need to put your stake in the ground, before all of the prime real estate is taken.

Equal Opportunities for Success?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Presidential campaign

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?

NCLB: The Great Debate?

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forget the Pointy Heads, Bring it to Main Street

Eduflack AFT, NCLB, NEA, Presidential campaign

As many continue to push (with limited impact) to make education a primary discussion topic for the 2008 presidential races, some education discussion is starting to seep through.  Maybe we’re getting sick of talking about waterboarding and obstructionists in Congress and four-year old votes.  But little by little, we’re starting to get a few interesting nuggets.  And none more interesting that Hillary Clinton and the writeups she received in The Washington Post these past two days.

In this morning’s editions, the Post has Hillary running new campaign commercials calling for the end of No Child Left Behind.  This may be news to Senator Kennedy and his work on NCLB 2.5, but Hillary is now opposed to the law.  Perhaps the rhetoric is the price one pays to win the endorsement of the NEA.  Or perhaps she has heard the high-stakes testing chorus sing one too many verses on the perils of NCLB.  Regardless, Hillary now joins Bill Richardson on the “all our educational ills are due to NCLB” bandwagon.

The more interesting piece, though, was included as part of a massive profile of Hillary appearing in the Sunday Post.  Dana Milbank has a great piece, entitled Teaching the Teachers, that provides a glimpse into how Hillary truly thinks about education.  The article can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801442.html.

What it demonstrates is that, in Hillary-land, education is a discussion between policymakers and practitioners only.  It is a talk for the government and for teachers.  And those other stakeholders we know are necessary — the parents, the students, the business community — and all those affected by the end result of our K-12 system,  are really just an after-thought, unimportant to the discussion.

Milbank sums up Hillary’s thinking best — “Let’s hear it for facility preparedness and adequacy! Put your hands together for kinesthetic learning and the de-homogenization of the classroom! Save the in-age cohort!”

Hillary’s talking inside baseball, and she only seems to want to speak to those who are warming up on that field.  Instead of seeing education as a great equalizer, as an issue that touches virtually every citizen, and as a continuous issue with real impact on the economy and the healthcare system and criminal justice and all points in between, she sees it as a theoretical discussion for the practitioners.  And that’s a real shame.

Yes, these issues may indeed be important when discussing education reform with teachers and administrators.  Sure, you need to show teachers you know the issues and you are one of the smartest people in the room when it comes to their concerns and their priorities.  But you can’t lose sight of the larger constituency here.

We all want to hear how you are going to improve our schools, improve the quality of teaching, and boost student achievement.  But instead of presenting a doctoral dissertation on the motivational misgivings of the North American third grade classroom, how about offering some practical solutions on how we, as a community, can do better?  When you were First Lady, it took a village.  When it comes to improving our public schools, it still takes a village.  Relate it to me.  Talk to me.  Show me what I can do to improve the quality of our schools and the instruction they offer.

Clearly, Hillary must have demonstrated this vision when she won the AFT endorsement earlier this year.  Again, now is the time to show it to us.  If you want to kill NCLB, that’s great.  But tell us what you will do instead.  We’ve had enough of the politics and communications of destruction.  The time has come for the rhetoric of solutions.  And if they are real solutions that can work in a school and a class like mine, all the better.

Pundits Vs. Analysts on Ed

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

Is it or isn’t it?  Yesterday, the Ed in 08 folks held a forum up in New Hampshire, offering an impressive list of “pundits” discussing how education was becoming a key issue for the upcoming presidential elections.  Today, This Week in Education has a link to a CNS News story, where their “analysts” say education will not be a significant issue in 2008.  (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11560325/)  Who’s right?  And does it matter?

At the end of the day, they are probably both right.  Education may be a top five issue when it comes to voter concerns, but it simply is not an issue that people vote on, particularly for presidential elections.  We’ll vote on the war.  On healthcare.  On the general economy.  Even for a balanced budget.  But education is viewed as a local issue.  The president may carry a rhetorical stick, but the vast majority of reforms, improvements and dollars are coming from state and local sources.  Governors and mayors and city councils get elected on education issues.  Not presidents.  As a result, education won’t be a significant issue in 2008.

But it can become a key issue in differentiating some of the presidential candidates (and that’s likely Ed in 08’s hope).  To date, Obama has done the most with the issue, calling for merit pay before the NEA and offering a fairly comprehensive education agenda earlier this month.  Others have dabbled in issues like preK or college loans.  Most have come out strongly against NCLB (even in GOP circles), particularly when it comes to testing.  That leaves a great deal of room to play in, position, and orate.

For months now, folks have been waiting for Ed in 08 to seize the podium as it intended this past spring, and really make the case for national leadership in education reform.  The organization has set a goal of advocating for three key issues with presidential candidates — 1) agreement on American education standards; 2) effective teachers in every classroom; and 3) more time and support for student learning.  Hardly the call to action that makes hearts skip a beat and convinces the citizenry to slay dragons with a butter knife.

Democrats want to advocate for education policy that aligns with the wishes and dreams of the NEA and AFT.  Republicans want to return education issues to the localities.  That leaves a wide lane for bold, strong action and rhetoric.

What would Eduflack be screaming on the stump?
1) A high school diploma is a non-negotiable that every student needs to obtain a meaningful job.
2) In the 21st century, every student needs some form of postsecondary education, be it community college, CTE training, or four-year institution.  A well-paying career requires postsec ed.
3) K-12 is no longer just an education issue.  It is an economic development issue.  If we want economic development, if we want good jobs, if we want job growth in our community, we need a strong K-12 system (and a strong PK-16 system would be even better).
4) Teaching is a hard job.  We need to make sure every classroom has a proven effective teacher, and that teacher has the support he or she needs to do the job (see Aspen’s Commission on NCLB for the blueprint on this one)
5) We only teach what works.  Proven effective rules the day.  Curriculum, teachers, and students must all show their worth and must demonstrate success.  The era of silver-bullet education and quick fixes is over.  It takes real work and proven effective instruction to do the job.
6) Education reform is a shared responsibility.  From the fed to the locality.  From teachers to parents.  From the CBOs to the business community.  We all have a role, and an obligation, in improving our public schools.
7) We need to publicize the successes.  We spend too much time talking about what’s going wrong in our schools.  We need to provide the megaphone to what is working, and use it a teaching and modeling tool.  We all benefit when we see what schools like ours and kids like our are doing to succeed.  And there’s a lot of good happening in our schools.

Yes, such messages are bound to offend some.  But isn’t that what bold communication is all about?  If we want to protect the status quo, we can speak in vague generalities with words that have muddled meaning and virtually no impact.  Improvement is reform.  Reform is change.  Change is rocking the boat.  

For the past few decades, public education has been home to the status quoers.  Look where it has gotten us.  If we expect to get real traction on issues like national education standards, performance measures for teachers, expansion of charter schools and school choice, and a number of other reforms and ideas that are thrown about, we need an environment that allows for change.  That’s the only way we get education into the top tier of issues for federal elections.

Without doubt, the good people at Ed in 08 have the resources, the experience, and the know how to do this.  The snowmen have had their chance to ask the tough questions.  Now’s the time to put the candidate’s feet to the fire on what exactly they would do to boost student achievement and educational quality in our public schools.  Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the system; we know it better than you.  Tell us how your administration will fix it.  Please.

If Ed in 08 can get us those answers, then we really have something to talk about.

College for Everyone?

Eduflack early college, higher ed, Marketing, Presidential campaign

As we move closer to the early 2008 primaries, the presidential candidates (particularly the Democratic ones) are starting to discuss their ideas on public education.  We still have a long way to go before we truly know what the candidates will do to improve public education and boost student achievement (funding preK is a start, railing against NCLB not so much).  But education is finally a second-tier issue in discussions, debates, and policy joustings.

And John Edwards is part of the chorus.  As of late, Edwards has started floating the idea of “College for Everyone,” his plan to provide every American with one year of free college (tuition, fees, and books), in exchange for having taken a college prep curriculum in high school, holding a part-time job in college, and generally staying out of trouble in life.

It’s a wonderful start, but, to Eduflack, the message falls grossly short.  Virtually everyone agrees that postsecondary education today is necessary for success tomorrow.  It provides the skills needed for a good job.  It provides choices.  It provides opportunity.  Be it a career certificate, two-year college degree, or four-year degree, postsecondary ed is a necessary component to contribute to the 21st century economy.

Edwards knows that.  The self-made millionaire owes his a good chunk of his success to his postsecondary education.  And as he tours the country talking about Two Americas, he has to know that education is the great equalizer between the haves and the have nots.  We reduce the gap between the two Americas through education and through the notion that success can be attained by all.

Knowing that, why does Edwards limit College for Everyone to just one year?  Are the doors of opportunity opened after taking a few 101 courses?  Of course not.  The path to success is accessed, in large part, through a degree.  That diploma is a measurement of achievement.  Employers aren’t looking for workers who have taken one year of intro courses.  They want workers with college degrees. 

When one looks at the number of organizations advocating for postsecondary education for all, one of the key messages is degree attainment.  We have built a national dialogue that students must graduate from high school, and that dropping out is not an option.  Postsecondary education is no different.  Students must use their high school years to get college ready.  And once the get to college, they need to earn their degree.  The ole sheepskin is still the common measurement of academic success.

In proposing an ambitious plan to get kids to college, Edwards is simply playing the role of tease.  The incentive should be a degree, not just a chance to hang out at the cool kids table for two semesters.  Ultimately, Edwards’ goal should be to boost the number of first-generation students graduating from high school and earning a college degree.  That’s the true road to equality and opportunity.  Anything short, an we are dangling success in front of many, only to pull it back when they reach for it. 

If we truly want to open the doors of postsecondary education to all students, we should be looking at adopting models that boost access and attainment, efforts like the Georgia Hope Scholarships.  Readiness.  Attainment.  Application.  That’s how we move students from high school through postsecondary and into career.  The goal should be a college degree for all, not a course or two of college for most.

Without such a commitment, Edwards’ College for Everyone plan may only do one thing.  That part-time job requirement may be the “path” that many students follow after they drop out of college after that first-year taste.  It’ll be one of a handful of part-time jobs they hold to help pay the rent.