Reading First

Setting a Reading Example

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First

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.

Getting Lost in the NCLB Wilderness

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

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

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Reading First, SBRR

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.
  

Putting the Math Cart Before the Counting Horse

Eduflack AYP, Math, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

If we are to improve our schools, we need research-based instruction.  Student achievement increases when we use instruction and interventions that are proven effective.  Do what works, and see the results.  It is an easy concept to spout, but a far harder one to put into practice.

Since the release of the National Reading Panel report in April of 2000, many have called for the adoption of scientifically based practice in reading and English-Language Arts classrooms throughout the nation.  We all know every student should be reading at grade level, particularly by the time they hit fourth grade.  Most of us know what it takes to get a child to read proficiently.  And some are unrelenting in ensuring that scientifically based reading is the one and only standard when it comes to our classrooms.

But what about math?  With the passage of NCLB, we all know that reading and math are the lighthouses for student achievement (with science shortly coming online).  Where are the similar demands for scientifically based math instruction in the classroom?  Isn’t it just as important to do what we know works, to do what is proven effective in teaching children math skills?  After all, we consistently use math as that great barometer to determining if our students have the chops to compete with students across the globe.

For those who missed it, last week Congress declared its intention to fund nearly $100 million in math instruction grants under Math Now, part of the America COMPETES Act.  If you didn’t see it, Sean Cavanagh and Education Week have the story — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/26/05mathnow.h27.html.

Sure, it’s easy to compare Math Now with Reading First, at least from Eduflack’s perch.  For RF, $1 billion a year to start.  For Math Now, $95 million (though supporters sought $250 million).  Both designed to support the adoption of instructionally sound practice.  Both desperately needed, particularly in our struggling schools.

There is one major difference, though.  Reading First was designed to put National Reading Panel and National Academies of Sciences’ research on how best to teach children to read into practice.  We identify what works and put our money behind it.  On the whole, the effort has been successful.  Like just about everything, the program needs improvement (the sort of improvements most government programs can learn from).  Reading First should be strengthened, tightened, and faced with greater oversight, ensuring that only truly research-based programs are receiving funding.  Our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going to fund promises or pledges or hopes or silver bullets.  We expect results.  We pay for what works.  That was the promise that Reading First made, a promise many are still waiting to be fulfilled.

Which takes us back to math.  Last year, the U.S. Department of Education announced the formation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.  The Math Panel’s findings are expected early next year, and the charge is to do for math research much of what the NRP did for reading research.  The panel is to tell us what works in teaching math, identifying the most effective and replicable instruction for empowering our students with math ability.

Makes you ask, then, what Math Now is based on, if the Math Panel’s findings aren’t due for another six months or so?  Unfortunately, this may be yet another example of rhetoric not quite aligning with practice.  Math Now is throwing its support behind initiative that are “research-based and have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.”  Shouldn’t we be waiting for the Math Panel to issue its report, detailing what the research base is and what the data tells us about effective math instruction?

Yes, it is important that we signal we are moving beyond the status quo.  We need to communicate a unifying commitment to boost student achievement.  And we need to pledge our support for research-based instruction and interventions that are proven to work.  Anything short of that, we are throwing good money after bad, with no hope of truly fixing the problem.

The America COMPETES Act is well-meaning legislation.  And Math Now is a good idea with real potential.  We just need to make sure it has the research support, the strong oversight, the cadre of advocates, and the effective communication to succeed.  Education reform cannot afford another “half-way” attempt at improving instruction of a core subject matter.  If we don’t take all of the necessary steps — research, policy, and communications — we will never solve the equation.

To Veto is to Improve

Eduflack AYP, HQT, NAEP, NCLB, President Bush, Reading First, Spellings

I’d like to think that everything I’ve learned about the legislative process, I learned from Saturday morning cartoons (and those five years working on Capitol Hill, I guess).  Just about everyone from my generation should know how a bill becomes a law, even if it is just from remembering Schoolhouse Rock.  But where is our song about the meaning of vetoing one’s signature domestic policy bill?

For those who missed it, President Bush, at his year-end briefing yesterday, tossed the biggest rhetorical softball possible to his critics and to those on the NCLB fence.  The President states that if he gets an NCLB reauthorization that weakens the law, he would veto it.

We may talk about lines in the sand, but Bush has now drawn a rhetorical Grand Canyon.  As other policymakers are debating multiple measures and increased funding and escape clauses, the President stands clear and emphatic in his position.  It’s improvement, or it is nothing at all.

This is an extremely bold stance from a lame duck president with low national approval rankings and little record on education these past couple of years.  And it is just the sort of bold statement the President needed to make if he is to save the one potential legacy piece of his domestic agenda.

With such a strong statement (albeit in a relatively throw-away media session), 2008 could be an interesting one, if we can get NCLB to the front of the policy agenda.  Why?

* Senator Kennedy continues to explore reforms to NCLB, and it is clear the law will change.  The big question is whether the law is strengthened, the law is watered down, or the law is tabled until a new president can put his imprint on the nation’s K-12 law.

* Advocates of the law have regained their stride.  For much of the year, NCLB critics have dominated the debate.  But we are starting to see cracks.  Earlier this week, Governors Thompson and Barnes of Aspen’s NCLB Commission had their oped on the law printed in The Washington Times.  Ed in 08 continues to push on the hows and whys presidential candidates should stand up to strengthen our nation’s commitment to K-12. 

* Recent NAEP and PISA scores have many talking about how we continue to improve the quality and measurement of education.  There is a growing hunger for proven, long-term improvement.

For years, Eduflack has opined on how NCLB could serve as President Bush’s true domestic policy legacy.  The changes he has made in how we teach, how we use research, what we expect of our teachers, and how we measure our schools will be with us for a long time.  The federal dollars spent on K-12 have never been higher.  And he has given federal education issues a singular voice under the banner of 2008.  Like it or not, the relationship between the federal government to K-12 public education is vastly different today compared to 2001.  And that relationship shows a vision from which Bush and his education team have never wavered, no matter the criticism, attack, or obstacle.

But if the President wants that legacy, if he wants an NCLB reauthorization he can sign, he needs to be both bold and proactive moving forward.  Now is the time for Bush (and Spellings) to step forward and clearly articulate those improvements they would agree to and those improvements that result in a better, stronger NCLB.

Like what?
* Provide schools and districts more flexibility to meet AYP, assuming their actions follow the spirit of the law
* Demand full funding for Reading First, while offering stringent oversight protections to ensure the funds are being used only on “gold standard” interventions with unquestioned research
* Take states to task for weakening their state standards just so they can claim proficiency on state tests
* Amend the HQT provisions to include provisions for effective teaching
* Ensure that real educators, policymakers, and the business community are involved in implementing NCLB 2.0 and evaluating its effectiveness
* Remind us of the primary audience for NCLB.  Yes, teachers and counselors and researchers are important.  But our primary focus is the student — how do we use the law to ensure all students are provided a high-quality education that prepares them for the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the 21st century.

I’m just an eduflack.  I’m sure there are a number of other ways we can strengthen the law, doing so in a way that will gain the President’s signature and the education community’s endorsement.  Mr. President, consider it my Christmas present to you.  No need for a thank you card, and no reason to consider returning it.

  

Where Have All the Readers Gone?

Eduflack early childhood education, Reading First, SBRR

The National Endowment for the Arts is out with a new research analysis that looks at the nation’s reading habits.  And the results are not pretty.  According to the NEA, less than a third of 13-year-olds are daily readers.  Americans ages 15-24 are spending two hours a day watching TV and seven minutes a day reading.  And reading scores for 12th graders fell sharply from 1992 to 2005.  The full report can be found at: http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html.

For years, we’ve been hearing of the Harry Potter effect, the belief that the boy wizard has dramatically increased the number of teens and pre-teens who have read for pleasure these past five years.  NEA is now saying Hogwarts is not a draw, and My Super Sweet 16 is a better attention-grabber than Harry versus Voldemort.

What’s interesting is that NEA compares TV time to pleasure reading.  Eduflack was surprised to see that 15-24 year olds are only watching TV for two hours a day.  So where’s the rest of the time going?  Video games?  Internet?  Volunteerism?  (Just kidding on the last one.)  If it is the web, how does that factor into reading?  Several unanswered questions.

Regardless, it is easy to draw the line between pleasure reading and reading ability.  When it comes to pleasure activities, just about all of us do the things we enjoy and that we can do.  If reading comes easily, we do it for pleasure.  If it is a struggle, it is a chore.  Some would rather do long division on a Saturday afternoon then be forced to read a book.  It’s sad but true.

So which comes first?  Do we become good readers by reading for pleasure, or do we read for pleasure because we are good readers?  Can one gain vocabulary and fluency and comprehension skills by spending more time with books and practicing their reading?  If adults are not reading, do we honestly think their children are going to choose to?

Reading should be a skill that permeates into just about everything else we do.  In school, reading skills will eventually impact a child’s ability to succeed in science, social studies, and even math.  In life, those reading skills are going to open pathways in high school, postsecondary education and careers. 

NEA does a good job at detailing some of the negative impacts that come from not reading.  But if we’ve learned anything from recent education communications efforts, it’s that scare tactics don’t work.  Students needs to hear what is possible from reading.  They need to hear of the doors it opens.  The jobs it offers.  The successes it results in.  Let today’s middle schooler pick a career.  I dare you to find a 21st century job that doesn’t require reading and critical thinking skills.  That comes from reading, both early and often. 

We can have the best instructional strategies and interventions in the first grade.  We can throw in the best, most effective teachers.  We can assess it and package it into a law.  It all gets lost if we aren’t supplementing it at home.  Kids mimic and copy and model their behavior after parents and family members.  Children will read if their parents make it a priority.  In our house, our 19-month-old eduson now demands two books before he will go to sleep at night.  He knows how to hold a book.  He knows one reads left to right.  He’s starting to identify the pictures.  We can now hope that he will read for pleasure (particularly since eduwife is a voracious reader).  We do it now, in part, so he is ready to read when he hits kindergarten.  And we do it now so he has it with him for a lifetime.

Virtually everyone can agree that students would benefit from additional reading instruction time during the school day.  Now we just have to remember that the learning day is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  If we want classroom reading instruction to stick, we need to reinforce it early and often at home and just about anywhere else outside the schoolhouse doors.  

A Big Win for Us RF Zealots

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Eduflack has pulled no punches when it comes to Reading First.  I can’t say it any clearer — RF works.  The science is clear.  We know it works.  We know what it takes to get virtually every child reading at grade level.  We know what tools teachers need to engender reading success in the classroom.  The goal of RF was to take decades of proven-effective research, and put it to use in our classrooms.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  We apply the research completely and with full fidelity, and kids will read.

For much of the last year, though, RF critics have been piling on, sensing a soft-spot in the law.  We’ve dubbed the research and the program a failure because of poor execution on the implementation.  Yes, implementation has been poor.  But skepticism about moving research to practice has led many to pull the rug out from under the entire program.  Congress is looking to dramatically slash federal RF funding, and virtually everyone is parroting the phrase “RF doesn’t work.”

Over the years, we’ve expected groups like the Center for Education Policy to add to the funeral pyre of NCLB and RF.  So imagine Eduflack’s surprise when, this week, CEP comes out with a study detailing that RF is having a real, positive effect on student achievement.

Imagine that.  Despite all the implementation problems.  Despite the army of whole language researchers bashing the law from day one.  Despite the congressional inquiries and the growing chorus of doubting Thomases.  Despite all that, Reading First works.

What did CEP find?  In what was Reading First’s roughest PR year, the percentage of states deeming RF very successful rose from 33 percent last year to 40 percent this year.  Those who found it moderately effective rose from 27 to 38 percent effective.  This year, only 2 percent found the law minimally effective, and non found it not effective at all.

I challenge anyone to show me an education law that has posted such strong positive impressions across the board.  Nearly 80 percent believe the law to be very or moderately effective.  Nearly eight in 10.  That’s a presidential landslide we’ve never seen before.  That’s two and a half Hall of Fame hitters.  That’s a grade good enough to kill any classroom curve.

As an education community, we like to believe in urban legends and things that go bump in the night.  And perhaps that’s why we’ve heard mourning bells for RF for many months now. 

But there is also no shaking that we live in an ROI environment.  We all way to see return, particularly when it comes from our education dollars.  And if we are to get that sort of ROI, we need to be investing in the strategies and interventions that are proven effective.  We invest in the unproven, and our money is likely heading down a black hole.  If we pay for what works, we get results.  It really is a no-brainer.

We need to open our ears and listen to those who know best.  No, we don’t have to believe those in the U.S. Department of Education who ask for more RF moneys.  So let’s listen to CEP, and the more than 300 schools they surveyed who clearly stated RF works, and by extension needs proper funding.  Let’s listen to the International Reading Association — never a BFF of the Administration — who is similarly calling for increased funding for RF.  And let’s listen to the countless classroom educators who have raised their right hands and sworn that student achievement has increased because of scientifically based reading in the classroom.

Thanks, Jack Jennings and CEP for showing us, once again, that RF works.  Hopefully, this recent study gets us one step close to ending the debate on to use or not to use Reading First, and instead change the discussion to one of how to effectively implement RF.  We know it works.  Let’s put it to work for us.

“All We Are Sayin’ Is Give NCLB a Chance …”

Eduflack NCLB, NEA, PR, Reading First, Spellings

What a way to start the week.  As Eduflack was trying to re-engage into the world after less than a week of family vacation, there is the New York Times oped calling on Congress and the U.S. Department of Education to resist the National Education Association and its attempts to weaken No Child Left Behind.  Today, we get the Washington Post editorializing that we cannot weaken NCLB, and they complement it by dedicating two-thirds of their op-ed page to essay-ettes on the virtues (or lack thereof) of the nation’s K-12 law.

That’s a lot of column inches dedicated to the protection of NCLB.  Heck, it is a lot of words dedicated to national education policy.  And it was just the sort of rhetoric that caught many by surprise, and had some downright fall out of their chairs.

Yes, we expect folks like NEA’s Reg Weaver and Fairfax County, Virginia Supe Jack Dale striking out against NCLB.  But did anyone expect the growing chorus of support for NCLB?

No, we didn’t expect it, but we’re thrilled to hear it.  Finally, the talk is about NCLB. Finally, the buzz is about the strongest possible interpretations of student achievement.  And finally, the focus is on effective measurement and evidence-based decisionmaking.

In doing so, we have taken a major step in the messaging and PR surrounding NCLB.  This is no longer a yes/no decision.  The voices of support have broken through the white noise, and we now see that NCLB (and its accompanying subsidiaries like Reading First and Highly Qualified Teachers) will remain the law of the land.  The rhetoric is not about gutting the law.  Instead, we are talking about improving it.

There is agreement on the need to assess student learning.  Now we just need decide on the merits of a single measure versus multiple measures.  There is agreement on quality teaching.  Now we just need to decide on the merits of training and pedagogy versus classroom results.  There is agreement on evidence-based instruction.  Now we just need to distinguish between the good research and the bad.  And now there is agreement that effective education is based on student achievement.  Now we just need to determine how to bring that new focus to every state, school district, and classroom throughout the nation.

One thing’s clear, it is going to be an interesting fall.  Yes, there are still many cards to be played in this game.  But if we start peeking at the hand that’s been dealt, the odds of NCLB 2.0 fulfilling the wishes of folks like WaPo, EdTrust, and others are looking stronger by the day.
 

Turning the Corner on NCLB?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Reading First, Spellings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.