Presidential campaign

Looking for Ideas Behind the Endorsement

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, HQT, PR, Presidential campaign

This afternoon, the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton for President of the United States of America.  It should be no surprise.  The former Clinton administration had strong support in the teachers unions.  And Senator Clinton has long been a friend of UFT, NYSUT, and AFT.  In its endorsement, AFT cites Clinton’s “proven ability to advance our nation’s key priorities, and her bold plans for a stronger America.”

And good for the AFT.  Rather than wait for additional polling data from the key early states, or wanting to see another quarter of fundraising totals, or waiting to hear more detail on specific issues and policies, the AFT has put its money down on the horse they expect to see in the winner’s circle.  And they’ve done so believing that Clinton represents the best opportunity for AFT-friendly policies come January 2009.

Eduflack is going to assume that Clinton just wowed AFT during the interview process, discussing those bold plans and awing them with her discussion of how she would deal with those key priorities.  Now she’s won their endorsement, and the organizational prowess, resources, and support that come with it.

But it’s got me scratching my head.  For those of us watching from the cheap seats, what exactly is Hillary Clinton’s education platform?  Visit her website, and you don’t even see “education” in her issues menu.  Take some time to explore, and in the “Supporting Parents and Caring for Children” list, you’ll find a bullet to attract and retain good teachers and principals, one to improve NCLB and a bullet increasing access to high-quality early education (a plank she has been quite vocal on and should be credited for).  But those issues are part of a laundry list that includes care for elderly Americans, support for “kinship families,” and opposition to sex and violence in the media.

We all talk about the importance of education.  About the need to improve our schools.  About the need to give every child a chance.  And about how high-quality education affects everything from jobs to healthcare to justice to environment.  Many of us cite education as the top domestic issue this nation faces.  And national polls seem to regularly put it in the list of top fives issues, foreign or domestic.

So if it is so important, why are we still hearing so little of it from presidential candidates?  What platform did Clinton offer to win the support of AFT?  What changes would she make to improve NCLB?  What commitments will she make to attract and retain good teachers?  Does she support merit pay?  What about alternative certification programs?  How about multiple measures of progress?  What interventions does she support to increase the graduation rate?  What is the platform?

I don’t mean to pick on Clinton.  She should be credited for putting forward a meaningful, thought-providing plan for improving early education.  And at the end of the day, she may be the strongest education candidate, in terms of policy ideas, an understanding for the possible, and the capability to reach for the near-impossible.  But if she wins the endorsement of the AFT (and we assume and NEA endorsement may not be too far behind), don’t the voters have a right to hear the specific ways the candidate will improve educational quality and delivery in the United States?  And if we don’t, how do we hold the candidate, any candidate, accountable?

 

In this rush to wrap up the presidential campaigns by this winter, we run the risk of placing assumptions and core rhetoric ahead of real ideas and policies.  In doing so, we continue to perpetuate the same old empty reform rhetoric, with no one being held accountable.  For those of us who vote on education issues, we want to hear those “bold ideas” Senator Clinton has.  That doesn’t come from one debate question or a well-placed oped.  It comes from an integrated, coherent strategic plan for improving K-12 education.  

Eduflack has bold ideas for a strong America too.  But no one is going to rush to endorse me for President.  Now that Clinton has the backing of AFT, I hope she will tell 1.4 million AFT members (and hundreds of millions of American voters) what specifically she is going to improve public education in the United States.  That would be something to truly endorse.  Now where’s Ed in 08 when we need them?

An Intriguing View from the Trenches

Eduflack NCLB, Presidential campaign, Students

Typically, Eduflack comments on what is appearing in the media.  What does it say about education reform activities?  How successful is it as a communication vehicle?  How does it contribute to the overall push to improve the quality of education for all students.

We hear a lot about student data.  This week brought us the debate on what a dip in SAT scores really means, and the Miller-McKeon bill offered the idea of multiple assessments to determine student achievement.  You know where I stand — there should be one national standard that all students are measured against.  It is the only way we can ensure that every student, regardless of hometown or socio-economic standing, has the skills and opportunities to achieve in the 21st century workplace.

So when the following piece came across Eduflack’s inbox, it piqued my interest.  It was written by Hayes Mizell, the former director of the Program for Student Achievement at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and former school desegregation advocate in South Carolina during the 1960s and 1970s.  While I may not agree with all of his points, it is a commentary definitely worth a read.

Why?  It is written from experience in the trenches.  It gives a different voice to an issue that is widely debated.  And it provides a call to action that isn’t seen too often in our middle-of-the-road commentaries.

So I offer the following from Mizell:


“Resting in their heavenly repose, South Carolina’s civil rights pioneers of the 1930s and 1940s must be scratching their heads. A prominent African-American state senator, also a Democrat and minister, says many of his generational peers are longing for the days of racially segregated schools. Another minister says most African-American children ‘fared better when we were segregated.’

These leaders are understandably frustrated. Too many children are not reaping the academic gains that African-Americans hoped would follow public school desegregation. On last year’s state achievement test, more than 40,000 African-American students in grades three through eight scored ‘Below Basic’ in English/Language Arts. An average of 60 percent of all African-American students in third through eighth grade performed at the Below Basic level in science.

There is some good news. Thousands of African-American students are performing well, scoring at the highest levels, “Proficient” or “Advanced,” on the state test. However, thousands more have the unrealized potential to do so.

Proposals to solve students’ academic problems abound, but many are simplistic. South Carolina has long favored such approaches in public policy. Human bondage would fuel economic development. Secession would free South Carolina of the federal yoke. Racial oppression and segregation would preserve ‘our way of life.’ Low taxes would attract industry. Providing a ‘minimally adequate education’ will secure the state’s future.

Now comes school choice. Some African-American leaders are tempted by the prospect of state financial support, one way or another, for constituents to choose private schools for their children. Perhaps they genuinely believe this will improve the education of the more than 275,000 African-American students in South Carolina’s public schools. It may be just as likely they are focusing on the relatively small number who attend or may attend private schools operated by some African-American churches.

There is no doubt some public school educators lack the cultural orientation, sensitivity, and pedagogical skills to educate some African-American students effectively. This is not universally true, however. Several months ago, the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee issued a report examining 26 ‘gap-closing schools.’ During four consecutive years, the schools significantly reduced the achievement differential between ‘historically underperforming students’ and the schools’ other students. Three of the schools had poverty rates greater than 70 percent.

What were the reasons for the schools’ success? The report concludes: ‘Not only do gap-closing schools maintain an instructional environment that supports high achievement, but these schools also create a positive school climate that fosters the attainment of high student performance.’ These conditions do not exist in every public school because local education leaders choose not to make the effort and take the risks necessary to develop and sustain them.

All South Carolinians, not just African-Americans, should be enraged that too many children are failing to meet the state’s academic standards. Where this is persistently the case, citizens should organize to demand and support improvements in their local public schools.

At the same time, African-Americans are entitled to the same portion of nostalgia as any other segment of the population. After three centuries, they also have the right to seek or create what they consider to be the most effective education venues for their children. Their unique history, however, provides them a useful guide to discern what is false and what is true. Separation, withdrawal, and isolation are anathema to authentic education. They did not serve African-American children well when required by law. They will not serve them well if sought by choice.”


Definitely gives folks something to think about as the Ed in 08ers push for greater education-speak in South Carolina and as we continue to look at (or look away from) the achievement gap.
 

Leaving a Lasting Ed Footprint

Eduflack NCLB, Obama, Presidential campaign, Reading First, Students

For months now, the drumbeat for education reform in the presidential campaigns has grown louder and louder.  Until recently, we got a tease in a stump speech here, a response to a YouTube question there, but little of any real substance and little of any real meaning.  Democrats have bashed NCLB, promising to overhaul it or kill it off completely.  Republicans have made mention of local control.  But few really tried to wade into the rhetorical waters, seeing if they could withstand the waves generated by the status quoers.

So it was refreshing to see that no fewer than four aspirants — on both sides of the aisle — for our nation’s highest office weaved education into their communications portfolio this week.

In the red corner, we heard Mitt Romney turn a great (though not original) rhetorical phrase, calling education a civil rights issue.  And from Rudy Guiliani, we heard the call for expanded access to school vouchers.  Both are speaking to the same concern — that every child, regardless of where they may lay their heads at night — is entitled to a high-quality, effective education.  And that education is a ticket to success in college and in career.

In the blue corner, we heard from John Edwards, focusing on the need for multiple pathways to high school graduation.  And just yesterday, we heard Barack Obama again praise the potential value of merit pay for teachers.  Here, both candidates called for a little innovation in our education reform, seeing merit in what is either unpopular with key constituencies (Obama) or shaking the foundations of that which we’ve known for decades (Edwards). 

And what can we glean from these forays into the ed reform arena?  First, it seems the growing demand for educational rhetoric and ideas is finally being heard in the campaign offices.  Be it Ed in 08, be it increased questions on the stump in Iowa or South Carolina or New Hampshire, but candidates finally see that education is a top domestic concern of the voters.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we are finally talking about education reform with an eye on the outcomes, not just on the inputs.  For years, education-speak was about what textbooks were purchased, what tests were to be given, and what a teacher payscale may look like.  Our focus was on the front end — what was going in.

With these latest remarks, we may have finally made the shift into outcomes.  The impact charter schools have on low-income students.  Equal access to a high-quality education.  Increased value of a high school diploma.  And rewarding effective teaching.

We’re still a long way from getting to the point where our educational successes are assessed on the achievement of our students and the measurable successes in our classrooms.  But we are starting to get there.  At the end of the day, outcomes are the only reliable measure we have.  We are still a nation at risk.  We are still leaving children behind.  If education is to truly become a civil right, we need to empower our teachers, our schools, and our communities to ensure that all kids get access to instruction that works, all students are measured effectively and equally, and all teachers have the support and incentives needed to drive such a train.

Yes, that is Eduflack’s educational dream.  Once we put aside the NCLB punching bag and start talking about the instructional issues that are of most importance to us and our children, we start seeing what is possible.  Education shouldn’t be a defense of the status quo and a firm “no” to new and innovative ideas.  There is a chance to leave a lasting educational footprint, a footprint that future generations can follow to continued improvement, achievement, and success.
  

“Pay Attention to Me!”

Eduflack NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign

Ed in ’08 is spending tens of millions of dollars to move education reform to the forefront of the 2008 presidential debates.  Richard Whitmire and the Education Writers Association are flooding the early primary states, calling on the presidential candidates to stand up and articulate their education platforms.  Strong resources, smart folks, proven tactics, and unwavering commitment.  All the components we say need to be in a successful PR campaign.

Despite that, education reform is still barely moving the rhetorical needle in the presidential campaigns.  We all agree a strong K-12 education is necessary for life success, necessary for a good job, and necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century global economy.  Good education allows us to focus on issues like health care, jobs, the environment, public safety, and the like.  Education is the gateway to the issues that dominate both our worries and our hopes for ourselves and our families.

So why can’t we get those seeking our vote to talk about such an important issue?  Are they still formulating their opinions and policies on student achievement, assessment, teacher quality, and the like?  Or do they fail to see the benefit of speaking on what could be controversial topics to their political bases?

Eduflack would like it to be the former.  I’d love to think that ed policy advisors are in Chicago and New York and Albuquerque and Charlotte and Boston and New York and all cities in between, hard at work on ways to improve preK, ELL, teacher training, reading, and college preparedness issues.  I’d be thrilled to know that come the start of the school year, we will see new proposals for strengthening NCLB, for universal preK, for improving graduation rates.  I want to believe that ed reform train is coming quickly down the tracks.

But I’m not hearing the whistle and I’m not seeing the lights.  And that makes me worry the reason for this quiet period is the latter.  Democrats don’t want to offend teachers unions by talking about accountability and improving NCLB.  Republicans don’t want to talk about the federal role in education.  And neither want to talk about the financial costs, the political commitment, and the hard realities that come with meaningful school improvement.

I urge, I dare, I beg the candidates to prove me wrong.  Senator Clinton, let’s continue talking about preK.  Senator Obama, I want to hear more about your after school/summer school plans.  Governors Richardson and Huckabee and Romney, let’s hear about the recent improvements in student achievement in your states.  Tell us the stories of what you’ve done and what you dream of doing to improve our schools and give all kids the skills, knowledge, and hope they need to be the successes we all want them.

We deserve Lincoln-Douglass style discussions on the future of public education in the United States, not a 30-second soundbite coming the night before the primary.  Step up to the stump.  We’ve kept it warm for you.
   

If a Tree Falls in The Ed Forest …

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Obama, PR, Presidential campaign, SBRR

If a press release is issued — one that is pithy and interesting and chock full of new ideas and meaningful policies — but is not reported on by the media, was it ever really released?  Does such an announcement make its way into the public space if its intended audience (the media) choose to ignore it?

Over at www.eduwonk.com, Mike Goldstein asks the question, reflecting on the relatively lackluster announcements that have come from the Democratic candidates for president, both at the NEA Convention and in general.

Anyone who expected real news to come out of an NEA Convention clearly has never attended one.  Between all of the “brother this” and “sister thats,” there is rarely a moment to talk about true reforms and improvement.  The Democratic candidates who paid homage before the House of Reg did so with one main object in mind — do no harm.  They went in and threw red meat to the lions — teachers deserve more pay, testing is unfair, etc., etc.  Hardly the action items deserving coverage in a weekly reader, yet alone a national newspaper. 

The rare exceptions — Obama and Huckabee.  Obama followed a pattern he has adopted in previous union visits, speaking truth to power and discussing issues that don’t make the top five approved texts with the membership.  At NEA, he spoke of equity pay, a topic NEA has fought for decades, and a topic that virtually every parent, community leader, and taxpayer believes in.  The same sort of merit pay systems that almost every other white collar job is governed by.  Obama got the headlines because he spoke on a taboo topic (or taboo for the audience) and he did so with strength and passion.  The challenge will be what he does with it next.  Was it rhetoric for the day, or was it policy?

As for Huckabee, he get the “A” just for showing up.  No one expects Republicans to come to the House of Reg.  After all, the NEA always endorses Democrats.  They lend all of their organizational might, fundraising, phonebanks, GOTV activities, et al to the Democratic candidate.  But that didn’t deter Huckabee for attending, and for speaking his mind.  In doing so, he established that education is an important issue for him, and he is willing to work with all parties to bring real reform forward.  Republican or Democrat, every governor works with teachers unions.  Huckabee reminded the NEA of that, and reminded them that he was fair to them all those years in Arkansas.

But back to Eduwonk’s question at hand — when do press releases get the play they deserve?  Goldstein hypothesizes they must be edgy and quotable.  Let me tell you, Eduflack has written thousands of press releases over the years.  Most have made their way into the news coverage; some have fallen flat.  And of those that have fallen flat, most have been quotable.  And some have even been edgy (or as edgy as the topic may allow).  So what was the missing ingredient?

If our presidential candidates, our education organizations, our influencers, and just about anyone else hoping to find a voice in the education reform forest wants to be heard via press release, they need to remember a few things:
* Keep it short.  Nothing that can be said in a page is any better in three or four pages.
* Keep it timely.  Relate it to news of the day or issues that you know the media is reporting on.
* Know your target.  Be sure you are sending it to the right person, and you understand the issues and topics that reporter has written or broadcast on in the past.
* Grab attention.  A great quote, a new statistic, or even a new spin on an old issue is likely to gain a second look from the recipient.
* Follow up.  Simply hitting send on the email program does not result in effective dissemination.  You need to follow up with the reporters you are hoping to entice with the story.
* Say something.  Press releases are not the vehicles for “me too.”  If you want a reporter to take the time to skim your announcement, you better be saying something original and interesting.
* Don’t waste time.  Reporters are getting hundreds of releases a day.  Most end up in the deleted bins of their emails.  If you aren’t saying something important, don’t say it.  You don’t want a reputation for sending non-news or for wasting the time of reporters by recycling the same releases, again and again, with a new headline.  Your issue may be important to you, but if you don’t entice the reporter with the new meal, do you really expect them to get excited with leftovers?
* Know your end game.  Is the purpose coverage in the local media?  Are you softening the ground for a harder announcement in a few weeks?  Sending a trial balloon on a controversial issue?  Or just reminding the media you exist?  Any release needs to help you reach the ultimate policy or political goal.

That being said, what can today’s presidential candidates say to gain attention from the media?  Clearly, they haven’t figured out what that is yet.  Other than an early ed policy here from Hillary, and a phys-ed policy there from Richardson, a number of “me toos” on the need for more student loans, the current chattering on presidential education reform has been weighed and measured, and, quite frankly, it has been found lacking.

If Eduflack were writing for one of these presidential candidates, he would follow the Obama mantra of being bold and audacious and really take the time to leave a rhetorical mark in the education forest.  How?

Go into the NEA conference and applaud NCLB for leveling the playing field, boosting student achievement, and finally giving every student the opportunity to succeed.  Sure, more must be done to strengthen the law.  But the law is good, and the law works.  Worried about getting attacked?  Senator Kennedy’s got your back.

Call on ACE to ensure that college credits are universally transferable, and that a postsecondary credit earned at an accredited community college should be taken at value at an state or private institution.  Need some help articulating?  Just take a look at the policy Ohio has been working on.

Acknowledge that public education has changed a great deal in recent decades, and that a system that incorporates traditional public schools, charter schools, and vouchers can work, and work well, when it has the full support of the community and the school system.  The goal is a high-quality education for all students.  It shouldn’t matter who is delivering the education, as long as all of our children are getting it.  Only then will it be taxpayer money well spent.

Listen to the NCLB Commission and demand that HQT provisions be changed to include a measure of effectiveness.  A good teacher gets her students learning and prepares them for success, both in school and in life.  HQET need to recognize that.

Speak out on the need for instructionally based preK, where students learn more than just social adjustment skills.  Recognize that ELL education is a necessary component of any urban education program, and if incorporated effectively, can boost student achievement.  Demand that SES funds be used on proven methods that directly correlate to increased performance. 

And finally, plant a big ole sloppy wet kiss right on Reading First.  We know it works.  Its been proven effective.  Even RF opponents are calling for full funding of the program.  Demand that Congress stop playing politics, restore full funding for RF, and work with Congress and ED to ensure that the money is being effectively spent and that any classroom receiving even one RF dollar is implementing SBRR with fidelity.&n
bsp;

While Eduflack is unlikely to get out of a Democratic primary with an education platform like that, it is one that works, it is one that will resonate with the media and with the public, and, most importantly, it is one that will make a real difference in terms of improving student achievement.  For those 17 individuals still mixing it up for their parties’ nominations, please feel free to crib even one of these policy planks for your campaign.  I guarantee you, if positioned the right way, it can be rhetorical gold.  And it may even improve the quality of public education in the process.

Beating a (Near) Dead Horse

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, President Bush, Presidential campaign, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

It’s been a heckuva week for No Child Left Behind.  Exhibit One is Alfie Kohn’s Opposing View in the May 31 USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/05/opposing_view_t.html?csp=34) calling for the immediate demolition of NCLB.  His reasoning — an emphasis on testing and a flawed study by the Teacher Network that Eduflack had some real issues with the first time around (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/04/03/teach-your-children-well.aspx)

This sort of attack has been waged on NCLB since its inception, and this is hardly Kohn’s first foray into the debate.  Perhaps one of the most prominent opponents of testing, he has railed the law for the past five years in his crusade against strict accountability, perpetuating the myth that NCLB was created as some sort of conspiracy to privatize our nation’s public schools.  While he spins a gripping tale, Kohn is hardly an impartial observer in this fight. 

Exhibit Two is the recent survey from Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University earlier this week stating that a majority of Americans want to either revise or eliminate NCLB. (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/23421)

This should be no surprise to anyone.  Do what our friends at This Week in Education did and take a look at media coverage of NCLB.  It is virtually all negative.  States suing the federal government.  Scandals and congressional hearings on potential conflicts of interest.  State and local officials bemoaning AYP and student achievement goals.  Urban legends of teachers being fired en masse because they fail to meet NCLB standards.  If that’s all you see, even the most ardent of NCLB supporters would grow sour on the law.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  The largest problem that NCLB reauthorization faces is one of PR and marketing.  Secretary Spellings and President Bush have let the opponents of NCLB dictate the terms of the debate for far too long.  As a result, NCLB is tagged with all negatives — anti-teacher, unfunded mandate, conflicts of interest, too strictly enforced, and requiring too much from our teachers, schools, and kids.  I can probably count on one hand the number of news articles from the past few months that focused on some of the positives — increased student performance, quality teachers in the classroom, effective instruction, and a level educational playing field.

NCLB is not going to win by playing defense.  Opposition to the law is growing because we are giving supporters nothing to hold onto.  We are failing to provide a rock-solid foundation of mission and results on which to stand.  We simply aren’t giving NCLB supporters the results they need to be proud of the law and its results.

What is there to be proud of?  What should advocates be talking about?
* Decision-making is now supposed to be based on the research.  Only proven-effective methods of instruction should be used in our classrooms.  We do what works.  No exceptions.
* Our teachers are set up for success.  We now make sure that teachers have the background knowledge, pedagogy, and skill to lead a classroom.  Those that don’t have access to huge pools of professional development funding.  As a result, teachers are both qualified and effective.
* Student achievement is on the rise.  We are just now starting to see the effects of Reading First and SBRR.  And in those schools and districts where it has been implemented with fidelity, we can see gains in student reading scores.  Students can learn to read with effective, proven instruction.
* Data collection is a priority.  We can’t improve without good numbers highlighting our strengths and weaknesses.  NCLB has ensured that schools, districts, and states are now collecting the data we need to effectively assess instruction.  We’re effectively disaggregating that data.  And we’re now able to apply the proper interventions to further improve instruction in our schools.
* We simply expect more.  For decades, we have taught to the lowest common denominator, worried that we were asking or expecting too much from our teachers and our students.  Today, we have raised expectations.  We talk about rigor and achievement.  And as a result, we give virtually every student an opportunity to succeed in both school and in life.

If we really want to shift the debate on NCLB, and begin talking about the issues that are truly important to the success of our schools and our nation, we should focus on the 800-pound gorilla in the room — national standards.  Yes, it will raise the ire of those on both the left and the right.  But at the end of the day, state growth models state-by-state negotiations of standards simply aren’t going to cut it.  If the United States is to truly compete — both educationally and academically — with the likes of China, India, and rising countries in the Middle East — we need to adopt serious national standards or benchmarks.  It is the only way we can ensure that the brand — American education — means the same in rural Alabama, South Central LA, Washington, DC, and the North Shore of Massachusetts.

Let’s see a presidential candidate, any presidential candidate, take that issue on.  Break from the educational norms and expectations and start speaking on a bold idea that could make a real difference.  Go on, I dare ya!

Injecting the Education Continuum in the Campaigns

Eduflack higher ed, NCLB, PR, Presidential campaign, Students

Kudos to Inside Higher Ed’s Scott Jaschik for today’s piece on how the 18 active 2008 presidential candidates are talking about education — primarily higher education.  http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/16/election  If the early results are any indication, it seems that college access and student loans are THE message with regard to education platforms.

Why?
* It is easy to define.  Most Americans understand the value of a college education.  They know college is expensive.  They know student loans are available.  These are terms of issues the average voter understands and can relate to.
* It’s a hot PR topic.  The New York State Attorney General has made student loans (and student lender relationships) the scandal of the day.  It is in the news, it is the focus of congressional hearings.  From a communications standpoint, it is the current wave that most need to at least test out.
* It’s relatable.  The rich can afford to go to any college.  Funny thing is, most Americans perceive themselves as being in the middle class, even if demographically they are not.  When you start talking about fairness and ensuring the middle class have access and funding to attend the college of their choice.  When those swing voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Florida and the like here the argument that we need to make college more affordable for the average American, they think the candidates are talking to them.

What’s missing, though, is an equally passionate debate on the education continuum.  Postsecondary education is important for virtually every student in America.  But what will the candidates do to ensure that students are prepared for college?  How will they deal with the 1.1 million high school dropouts each year?  How about the 30-50% of college students who have to take remedial courses to get up to speed?  And how will they ensure that students are gaining knowledge and skills related to what they want to do with their lives?

The general silence on K-12 issues at this stage of the presidential campaigns can only mean one of two things.  Either all candidates agree that NCLB is essentially steering us in the right direction, and requires only the moderate tinkering Congress and its influencers are discussing or they simply don’t have answers (or even thoughts) on how to further improve primary and secondary education in the United States.

Unfortunately, it is probably the latter, and not the former.  So I’ve got three pieces of advice for the candidates, Democrat and Republican, to remember when crafting their messages:
* As in generations past, we all want to see our kids do better than us.  The key to that is education.  Making sure they are achieving at grade level by fourth grade.  Instilling independent thinking in the middle grades.  And advocating for both rigor and relevance in high school.  Success requires an education continuum, not just a college degree.
* K-12 education touches every U.S. citizen.  We all went to school.  We all pay taxes to support our schools.  We all have or know of children in the schools.  Promise us you will ensure that those kids are getting the best and that our taxes are being well spent.  And tell us how you will measure it and hold policymakers and schools and teachers accountable.
* Education is not just a learning issue, it is a work issue.  Too many people put school in one bucket, career in the other.  A strong K-12 education is necessary to a strong, effective workforce.  Whether you be wearing a blue or a white collar, you need core reading, math, problem solving, and teamwork skills to succeed.  Want a good job, you need a good education.  And it is up to the President, the Congress, the Governors, the Mayors, and the Superintendents to ensure that our schools are delivering such an education.  It is the only way to truly keep our economy, and our nation, strong.

Now is the stage of the campaign where candidates start telling us what they stand for and what they believe in.  And their are few issues that define character and a campaign than education and education improvement.  Here’s wishing these ideas start making their way into stump speeches and campaign commercials.  

Vote for Ed

Eduflack NCLB, Presidential campaign

Every election year, we seeing polling numbers that show education is usually one of the top three “issues” for the average American.  Yet when it comes time to pull the ole lever in the voting booth, few Americans seem to cast their votes on education policy stances.  Such a disconnect demonstrates the chasm between public awareness of an issue and public action on the same issue.

Along comes Ed.  Or rather the Ed in ’08 (www.edin08.com) campaign launched last week (and this week) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation.  As part of their Strong American Schools initiative, Ed in ’08 seeks to make education reform the primary domestic policy issue in the 2008 presidential elections.

Many critics have been quick to discount the effort, believing that such issue campaigns have been unsuccessful in the past.  But none have been envisioned at the size and scale that Ed in ’08 is intending.  Others continue to believe 2008 will remain a one-issue race (begins with “I” and ends with “Q”), and everything else will get lost in the fringes.  But I have greater faith than that.

Without question, Strong American Schools has some potential obstacles to face.  The largest is voter apathy.  The key to success for Ed in ’08 is driving new audiences into the political process, getting them to take a stand, demand attention on their issues, and casting their votes based on the attention those issues receive.  That means engaging individuals who have either disengaged from the process or who have never wanted to play in the first place. 

The second is the NIMBY factor.  Reform is all about getting people to stand up and say the current system is failing ME, and I deserve better.  But if you talk to the average parent, or even the average teacher, about eduction reform, you usually get the same response.  “The nation and/or the state is in real trouble and needs fixing.  But my own school is doing just fine.”  We don’t want to believe we are teaching in or sending our children to a school that just isn’t up to par.

What does all this mean for Governor Romer and the folks at Strong American Schools?  The mountain before them is not an easy one.  They need to overcome cynicism, apathy, and the defenders of the status quo.  But it is possible to reach that apex.  By employing successful public engagement activities, by taking the message to the disengaged, and by establishing a new paradigm for using a singular policy issue to define a complex political process, they can achieve the bold goals they have set out to reach.  We aren’t talking about a plank in a party platform here.  We are talking about a shift in public thinking and public action.  “We want to strengthen our schools, AND we vote!”

How do we do it?  

1. Demand More — Too often, such issue advocacy efforts are about the “no.”  Don’t change Medicare.  Don’t recalibrate Social Security.  Don’t vote for Candidate X because he did Y or Z.  Strong American Schools needs to be about the “yes.”  What do we need to do to make our schools better?  How do we improve NCLB?  How do we better prepare and empower our teachers?  That means real answers to some difficult questions.  For instance, each of the presidential candidates should be asked to complete a survey of hard-hitting questions about K-16 education.  And we’re not looking for simple answers to questions like “Do you support teachers unions?” or “Do you support student loans?”  By requiring real answers that demand more than a 22-year-old research assistant culling responses from old campaign literature or voting records, the public can get substantive answers to “how” we strengthen our schools.  And that information can be used to to engage and empower a new generation of activists and advocates.  We aren’t looking for soundbites; we need substantive thinking that demonstrates and understanding for what is happening in my state, in my city, and in my school.

2. Change the Dynamic — Armed with the hard information on what the 18 (gulp) presidential candidates would do to strengthen our schools, we need to use new communications tools to engage those new audiences.  2004 taught us a great deal about new media.  Traditional television ads and leafleting remain an important component of any information campaign.  But they no longer can get the job done by themselves.  The changes advocated by Ed in ’08 require bringing new audiences into the fold — individuals and groups that have not been involved in the presidential process in the past.  That means effectively utilizing new media (web sites, blogs, chat rooms, meetups, etc.) and employing time-tested social networking efforts.  The goal is to raise the sense of urgency with stakeholders.  That means constant access to information and unwaivering calls to action.

3. Turn to New Audiences — As I’ve said earlier, success comes when we tap the concerns and the uneasiness of those previously avoiding the process.  For those who are regular voters, it is safe to say 45% vote Democrat, 45% vote Republican, and the fight is for that final 10%, regardless of who the specific candidates are.  That’s what pollsters and party activists depend on.  You change the game when you introduce new voters into the process.  MTV tried that in 1992, seeking to spur Generation X into the voting process. Ed in ’08 has a similar opportunity.  Let’s look at Generation X and Generation Y.  They are the closest to the issue.  Their views of high school, for instance, are still fresh of mind.  They know the shortcomings of our schools.  They feel, day in and day out, the impact an irrelevant courseload is now having on their ability to win a good job.  And they are still optimistic enough that want to fix the problem for their little brothers and sisters and their communities.  Let’s get those audiences involved.  When we add voices to the debate, we completely shift the playing field.  And that shift requires a new look at issues and a new respect of those issues from candidates.

Education reform should be our central domestic policy issue.  There is no single issue more important, and no single issue that touches more people in more ways.  Education is a health issue.  It is a jobs issue.  It is an economic development issue.  It is a crime issue.  And it is an environmental issue.  Education touches and influences them all.

What candidate or interest group is going to stand up to oppose strengthening our schools or improving the quality of education in our communities?  Some will surely try.  There are too many who fight to protect the status quo.  And there are some that want to take a huge step backward, undoing the progress we have made in school improvement over the past five years.  But by focusing on the end goal, and building a comprehensive, integrated communications effort that both informs and changes public action, Ed in ’08 can succeed.

Strong American Schools has raised the flag.  Now is the time to salute and acknowledge that we can settle for nothing less that complete victory.  The future of our nation depends on it.         

Education Campaigning, Democratic Style

Eduflack Obama, President Bush, Presidential campaign

Unlike their Republican competitors, Democrats have been campaigning on education issues for decades.  Building off of Tip O’Neill’s adage that all politics was local, the Democrats have long focused on their local schools and their local school districts.  And with the local teachers unions offering organizational support, telephone banks, and scads of votes, campaigning on education issues has been a no brainer.

Certainly, the Democratic field will soon be deferring to the NEA and AFT on their education platforms.  As we saw in Education Week a few weeks ago, today’s Dem contenders have to go back 10 or 20 years to cite their commitment to education, and that’s even with Hillary and Obama sitting on the Senate Education Committee.  But if they are going to break through the white noise of typical union ed policy, they need to be bold and connect with those on the front lines, not their DC representatives.

For the record, I am the son of a long-time NEA school teacher.  In 1990, my mother walked the picket lines in West Virginia for two weeks.  And I never saw her prouder of being a teacher than during that 11-day exercise of civic duties.

And I know, as a former political operative, the value the NEA and AFT can play for a political candidate, particularly one on a national stage.  So I ask the Democratic field — Hillary and Obama, Edwards and Richardson, and the rest of the pack — to be strong, be valiant and stand up for education reform, not just for union education.

To that end, Eduflack has a five-point plan for our Democratic presidential candidates to frame education as a key component of their campaigns.  For most, they can’t speak of their work at the school district or state level.  But all can talk about education improvement for all.

1.  We all must commit to improve our schools.  We cannot and should not simply protect the status quo.  That means having hard coversations with the teachers unions and pushing them and school administrators to make hard decisions.  Sacrifices today can yield improvements tomorrow. 

2. Additional funding does not directly result in improved achievement.  For every carrot, there is a stick.  If we are to increase NCLB spending (and we should, particularly to get effective teachers in the classroom), we need to ensure that such funding increases are focused on proven programs, improved assessments, and effective interventions.  As a nation, we will pay more if we see the results.

3. National standards level the playing field.  Regardless of who controls Congress or the White House, no one should be afraid of national education standards.  Such standards offer a promise of equity in all of our schools.  For those traditional blue states, and the urban centers located in them, national standards ensure that all students, regardless of their hometown, race, or socioeconomic status, are taught and measured compared to every other student in the country.  That equal field only helps when it comes to college, to jobs, and to life.

4. The time has come for Democrats to push the unions.  Can anyone honestly say that our schools wouldn’t benefit from teacher improvement.  HQT provisions in NCLB are fine, but the NCLB Commission got it right — we need to focus on effective teachers, not just qualified ones.  Teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there, but intellectually and emotionally.  We need to do everything possible to support those teachers on the front lines.  But we also need to recognize that not everyone is cut out for the challenge.  Our schools need an assessment/improvement/mentoring model for all teachers.  Good teachers will thrive.  Those not destined to teach can move on with their professional lives.

5. Education reform is a shared responsibility.  Meaningful change is not just left to the teachers or the national education organizations.  Just as Hillary Clinton wrote about it taking a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to educate one.  Improving our schools requires teamwork.  Teachers and parents, business and community leaders, local, state, and federal officials all play a role in identifying, implementing, and assessing meaningful, results-based reform.  Shared responsibility results in shared success.

Education is an easy topic for today’s Democratic candidates.  But now is not the time to sing exclusively from the union hymnals.  Democrats were a key part in getting NCLB implemented across the country, and Democratic presidential candidates can continue the push for results-based education reform by building on the foundations of NCLB and pushing for shared responsibility, shared desire to improve, and a shared commitment to increase funding for our schools … as long as it is spent on proven programs, training, and intervention.  

Education Campaigning, Republican Style

Eduflack NCLB, President Bush, Presidential campaign

For those Republican candidates currently pursuing the GOP presidential nominations, education seems to be the farthest thing from their campaign stump speech.  For decades, GOPers chose not to campaign on education (with President George W. Bush being the long exception), believing it was an issue that always should be left to local decisionmakers and subject to local control.

But poll after poll shows that education is a top concern for just about everyone — soccer mom, purple stater, etc.  So in our post-NCLB era, how exactly does a legitimate Republican candidate talk about education.  Rudy can discuss his management of the New York Public Schools.  Huckabee can talk about improving education in Arkansas, as Romney can in Massachusetts.  But for many candidates, legislative votes don’t translate into a policy platform.  And with Republicans turning on NCLB, it is important to have strong rhetoric that matches voter sentiment on education reform.

For that reason, Eduflack is offering its top five recommendations to Republican presidential hopefuls.  Backed by the overall belief that NONE should back away from NCLB, here are five ways for Guliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and the rest to frame their education policy thinking:

1.  National standards benefit the nation.  Such standards don’t mean we are denying local control.  They empower our local districts to remain competitive in their state, across the nation, and throughout the world.  National standards, both for students and teachers, are the only way today’s students can succeed in tomorrow’s global economy.

2. Invest in education R&D.  We all understand the value of investing in medical or technology R&D.  Now is the time to invest in research focused on improving our schools and educational quality in our classrooms.  Such investment is key to triggering true innovation at the state or national level, leading to improved economies, better jobs, and better lives.

3. Respect the practitioners.  It is easy for some to say our schools have failed because our teachers have failed.  If any Republican wants to engender change in our schools, they need to respect the teachers delivering the curriculum.  They are on the front lines.  Without their support, reform will fall flat, destined for a garbage heap of good but failed ideas.

4. Don’t fear additional spending.  NCLB scared off many a Republican, particularly with increased federal education spending.  The feds are still only responsible for about 8 cents of every dollar spent on public K-12 education.  Additional funding is good for the system, as long as we are spending it on research-proven instruction and improvements we know will boost student achievement.

5. Focus on what works.  For decades, our schools have been bombarded with the latest in snakeoils and silver bullets.  Today’s educators want to see what works in schools like theirs, with kids lke theirs.  NCLB is all about replicable school reforms.  Now is the time to spotlight what is going right in your hometown or your home state, and use it as the model for why we need to continue federal education reforms.  Many of today’s improvements are directly tied to NCLB efforts.  Take credit for it.

These may be common sense, they may be simple, but they are effective.  By connecting with teachers and parents, focusing on the positives, the successes and the future, and demonstrating respect for those we are asking more of, a candidate can truly win minds and influence voters.  It is simple politics, but one with a high upside.