A decade ago, there was one word that was often used to describe educational research. That word — squishy. Despite all we knew about what worked and what didn’t in education, the research base was often soft or without merit. Once you peeled back all of the layers, so-called research studies would end up being nothing more than consumer satisfaction studies, focus group reports, or public opinion surveys without the intellectual heft.
The issue came to a point with the National Reading Panel, which brought the term “scientifically based reading research” into vogue. (Again, full disclosure, Eduflack was senior advisor to the NRP, and damned proud of it.) Two years later, NCLB took on the term, and used it more than a hundred times in the law. We began to shift toward an industry driven by science and documentable proofs. It was about what works, and a clearinghouse to hold that research. It was about a medical model, with real control groups and replicable research models. It was about proven effectiveness. It was about making a difference.
As part of that shift, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) met its demise. Many scientifically-based proponents placed the blame for squishy research firmly in the laps of OERI. For decades, it funded qualitative studies and those that would never be mistaken for the medical model. To be fair, OERI also endorsed the findings of the NRP and the call for more rigorous research.
After passage of NCLB, Congress approved new legislation to eliminate OERI and create a new research arm for the U.S. Department of Education — the Institute of Education Sciences. IES became the father of the What Works Clearinghouse and the champion for scientifically based education research. And since its inception in 2002, IES has been led by Russ Whitehurst.
Whitehurst’s six-year appointment ends in November, and we’re already seeing his obituaries. Many tag the recent AERA meetings as his swan song. Today’s Washington Post wrote a quite reflective piece on his tenure, which can be found in full here … http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042701866.html.
The Post does a good job of laying out Whitehurst’s legacy at the helm of IES. But the big question is where do we go from here. Some seem to think IES should revert back to more of an OERI-style operation, more closely intertwined with ED and more forgiving when it comes to “different” forms of research. IES has taken a hard line and bears the scars. Some fear the Institute. Others try to avoid it. And others more think it is one of the most positive steps we have taken to strengthen education in this nation.
Put Eduflack down in the third of those three categories. We need to do what works. We need good research. And we need to make sure our federal education research dollars are being spent wisely and on replicable research. Unlike healthcare, education doesn’t have a big private-sector investment in education R&D. We don’t have an FDA or a similar organization to vet outside research. But we have IES. And we have several years of good work from the Institute, work that has eliminated our house on the sand, and put it firmly on a concrete slab.
Sure, there are things that IES could do better. It could improve communication with key stakeholders. It could better promote the WWC and the impact it is having. But most of those improvements are in the communications arena. In terms of policy and content, IES is on firm footing.
So where do we go from here? Who is the next Director of IES? And what path should he or she take?
Clearly, many of the likely candidates this administration would offer have been tagged in one way or another by the IG investigation into Reading First. Others may choose to stay away for that same reason. So I’ll leave it to Knowledge Alliance and the true wonks of the policy wonks to throw out some specific names (I have two or three on my preferred list). But I will offer five characteristics the Administration (or the future Administration) should look for to fill the IES Director’s chair come November:
* A Strong Research Background — This should be a no-brainer, but we have to say it. He has to walk the walk.
* Classroom Experience — One of the greatest criticisms of most scientifically based education researchers is they don’t have K-12 classroom experience. Even if it is only for a few years, they need that line on the resume to be able to talk effectively with classroom teachers
* A Collaborator — For IES to grow and continue to strengthen, the new Director must build bridges between ED departments and the ED blob around town.
* An Understanding of Relevance — Methodology is important. Knowing how to take that research and put it to use in the field is priceless. IES must link its growing research base to practice in public P-12 schools across the nation.
* A Communicator — In its second term, IES must better communicate its mission, its goals, and its successes. It is doing great work, but if we don’t know it, they may as well be whistling in the wind. The Director is not only chief researcher, he is also chief spokesman and chief cheerleader. And the latter two are often more important.
That’s not asking too much, is it? Too often, we squander our progress during transition. It doesn’t have to be that way with IES. With Whitehurst’s legacy, and his and ED’s help in transitioning to the next six years, we can build on the successes, and not let them rot from neglect. We have an opportunity here. Let’s hope ED takes advantage of it.
SBRR
Scanning for Success
You can often hear the most interesting things on talk radio, particularly at the height of campaign season. This afternoon, Eduflack was surfing the AM stations and came across and interesting tale from primary season in Indiana. As he is barnstorming for his wife in the Hoosier State, former President Bill Clinton spoke on education. More importantly, he spoke on scientifically based education.
In what I’m guessing was a detour from the approved stump speech, Clinton told the audience that there were now machines out there that could scan the brains of everyone in the audience. With those scans, he continued, we could get every person (except those with diagnosed learning disabilities) to learn and achieve. If we can do it, why aren’t we getting our children to learn?
If I didn’t know any better, the Clinton campaign is now advocating for scientifically based education research. For those in the trenches of the reading wars, we’ve long heard the impact of such scans and brain patterns on learning. Just take a look at the work from folks like Sally Shaywitz, Guinevere Eden, and many others, and you can see the power of the scan. It is just amazing to see how brain activity changes as students are stimulated with scientifically based instruction.
For many, learning is just as much art as it is science. And that’s unfortunate. In the past decade alone, we have seen significant quantitative research on effective instruction. We know what works. We know what we can prove (and we know what we can’t). Scientifically based education is about getting what is proven effective into the classroom. It’s about ensuring that every child can indeed succeed in the classroom.
Bill Clinton is right. We can scan the brain, and use the technology to improve instruction and classroom success. The research is clear. Scientifically based education research works. Maybe those steadfast opponents of scientifically based research need a quick run in the old scanner themselves.
It Just Adds Up
Nearly eight years ago, the National Reading Panel released its findings before Congress, officially starting the push for scientifically based reading research — or SBRR — in the classroom. Then, just as now, we knew that all students needed reading skills in order to achieve. We knew that an inability to read at grade level by fourth grade would hamper learning ability throughout a student’s academic career. And, thanks to the NRP and the previous work done by the National Academies of Science, we know what our classrooms needed to do to transform every child into a reader. The research was clear, the NRP documented it, and the challenge became equipping every teacher with the knowledgebase and ability to use that research and get kids reading.
In many ways, the NRP report was a revolution. Strong supporters and equally strong opponents went through it recommendation by recommendation, idea by idea. Other researchers, such as Camilli, re-analyzed everything to determine if the findings were accurate (they were). And in the end, the research stands as strong today as it did in April of 2000. Some may attack the personalities involved in the NRP. Others may wish the NRP had studied more issues or made additional recommendations (particularly as they relate to literature or to qualitative research). And still others may wish the NRP findings had been more flexibly adopted as part of Reading First. But no one can question that the NRP started a revolution, giving us a new way to look at education, a new way to look at educational research, and higher standard for doing what works and seeking return on educational investment. (Full disclosure, Eduflack was senior advisor to the NRP, and damned proud of the Panel, its work, and its impact on education.)
It took years before we saw the full impact of the NRP findings. SBRR didn’t enter the discussion until two years later, after NCLB and RF were signed into law. (Yes, the NRP was a Clinton-era initiative). But look at it now.
It is significant to remember this as we look at this week’s report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. For those who missed it (and it was hard to, with the significant media coverage it received from the nation’s leading newspapers), the Math Panel offered significant recommendations on the math skills our students need to succeed and how our nation’s teachers can empower all students with such skills.
In doing so, the Math Panel has now planted a firm flag in the name of education reform and improved student achievement. By looking at ways to improve the PreK through eighth grade math curriculum, the Panel has clearly articulated what our kids should know as part of their mathematics education. And they have provided specific goals for math instruction, goals that can and should guide curriculum development, program acquisition, teaching, and learning in schools and classrooms across the nation.
The Panel’s members should be applauded for their hard work and their commitment. This report is an important milestone in the improvement of math education in the United States. Unfortunately, it is just the first step of many. From Eduflack’s experience, the hard work begins now. Now, we have to move those findings into practice.
Too often, we’ve seen important government studies that never live up to their potentials. Reports are published. Copies are distributed. Then they sit in closets or on bookshelves never to be seen again. Many believe simply distributing the report, and raising awareness of its existence and contents, is all that is needed. We know, however, that is far from the case.
For the Math Panel report to have the impact it should have on our schools, we need to look beyond mere information distribution and focus on changing math teaching and math learning. If we learned anything from the NRP, it is that an aggressive public engagement campaign is key to long-term impact. Yes, it is important that we learn of the Math Panel’s findings. But it is more important for teachers to understand how they need to change their practice and the impact it will have on students. We need administrators to know what they must look for in selecting curricular solutions. We need teacher educators to know what skills and abilities they must equip future generations of math teachers with. We must let all of our key stakeholders know what they have to do differently to meet the Math Panel’s goals — and we must arm them with the resources and support necessary to achieve it.
The time is now for the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and math educators, math advocates, parents, and policymakers who are committed to boosting math achievement among U.S. students. And it is a time to act. With a clear blueprint, we know where we need to go and what we need to do. Now, we must learn from the experiences of the NRP, avoid the political roadblocks and the straying from the research, and focus on doing. It’s the only way our kids can ensure that classroom experience times research-based practice equals long-term results.
The Hard Truth on Proven Reading
For the last year, many have been rushing to bury the federal Reading First program. Congress has dramatically slashed funding for the effort. Critics have been quick to discount the impact the program has had on student achievement scores. And the program has quickly been lumped in with No Child Left Behind as another example of what is wrong with federal involvement in education.
These eulogies make us forget of the deserved praise the program received when it was first written into law. The goals were admirable. Get every child reading at grade level by fourth grade. Significant, relevant professional development for teachers. A commitment to doing what works, ensuring schools are adopting programs and instructional approaches that are proven effective. It was about giving all students — regardless of reading skill, socioeconomic level, or geographic location — a sense of hope and opportunity.
Those goals were lost in recent years to urban legends of “approved lists” and conspiracy theories. A noble mission was lost to implementation mis-steps. A research-based approach fell victim to politics.
The whole story can be found in a report written by Sol Stern and released by the Fordham Foundation. “Too Good To Last: The True Story of Reading First” (http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/reading_first_030508.pdf) is a fantastic analysis of the roller-coaster ride that is Reading First. In exposing both the warts and the silver lining of the program, Stern has done what few have been able to do in recent years. He reminds us of the promise and intent of Reading First, clearly demonstrating what could have been and why it is not.
At the end of the day, we know that scientifically based reading works. We’ve seen the positive impact its had on districts, schools, and kids across the nation. It works with struggling readers, and it works with G&T readers. It works in urban, suburban, and rural schools. It just plain works.
Reading First sought to get SBRR into every classroom in the United States. If we are to learn from the past, we should definitely study up on Stern’s analysis. By learning why so much went wrong in implementing Reading First, we can all learn what is needed to get research-based reading into all those classes we promised it to. The federal program may be ramping down, but we still have a nation of students that need to be reading at grade level and need the hope and opportunity that reading ability instills.
Readin’ in the Sunshine
Tomorrow, Eduflack heads down to Tallahassee for the annual Florida Association of School Administrators conference. So imagine my pleasant surprise to see today’s Tallahassee Democrat article on the establishment of a first-grade reading academy in Leon County, Florida. (http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/NEWS01/803030316/1010)
For much of the past year, it seems that school districts have been frozen in place when it comes to strengthening reading instruction. Chalk it up to a host of reasons — the 2006 IG investigations into Reading First and subsequent proposed cuts to the federal reading program, uncertainty about expected NCLB requirements and funding, satisfaction with current reading efforts, or budget struggles that place priorities elsewhere. Whatever the cause, reading just hasn’t been on the educational frontburner these past 18 months.
So let’s hand it to Leon County for putting their money where the research is. This summer, first graders unable to read at grade level will gain extra reading help for six weeks, four days a week, for six hours per. The program is similar to one the school district had previously launched for third-graders.
Why is this so significant? It may just be that we are seeing the rhetorical pendulum swing back again. In Leon County, they are talking about the research-based components of reading — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. They are discussing the need to have all kids reading at grade level by fourth grade. They are taking about curriculum based on the findings of the respected Florida Center for Reading Research. After a two-year hiatus, we are again talking about scientifically-based reading research.
Sure, this could be the exception. But Leon County is embracing what many school districts rallied to just a few short years ago. We’re talking about kids and their reading skill levels. We’re talking about research-based interventions to get kids reading at grade level. We’re talking about doing what works. What could be more effective than doing what works, particularly when it comes to reading?
Hopefully, this is a sign of good things to come down at FASA. Florida’s long been a leader in reading instruction. These academies could be just the model we need to jumpstart reading instruction in 2008.
It’s All About the Outcome
Anyone who has read Eduflack knows that I am a big proponent of outcomes,and not inputs. I look for results over process. In education, this is often a difficult fight. So much effort and so many reputations are tied to the process that we can often lose sight of the end game.
Earlier this week, Eduflack was at an event and had the opportunity to hear Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine talk about his vision for education improvement in the Commonwealth. Building an aggressive agenda that includes everything from preK to high school improvement to new governor’s STEM academies, Kaine has laid out a true vision. Such vision can often be lost among the process weeds, though.
The Virginia governor also spoke to a philosophy that far too many so-called education governors need to subscribe to. This is not an issue of choosing programs, this is about securing results. To accomplish this, we need to be flexible. Flexible in our choices. Flexible in our approaches. Certain of our goals.
Don’t understand what he means? Take a look at elementary reading instruction. It’s very easy for educators or school boards to step forward and say we should adopt program X or intervention Y. We can choose such programs because they work, or we can select them because we recognize the name, we enjoyed the sales pitch, or we just had a feeling.
In selecting a program, our goal is reading achievement. We want all students reading at grade level. We want to encourage good readers to become better readers. We want to help struggling readers. And we want to measure the results. We don’t need Reading First to set those goals. It’s been the objective of elementary teachers since Dick and Jane first got together.
Unfortunately, in recent years we’ve gotten too caught up in the process. And battles like the Reading Wars have made flexibility a bad word. Kaine is right. We need to be flexible if we expect to get results. What works for one doesn’t necessarily work for another. We need the ability to adopt approaches that work in schools and classes and with kids just like ours. And teachers need the ability to adapt to the individual needs of students or classes.
Yes, Virginia, results matter. And flexibility helps us achieve those results. Governor Kaine may be on to something here.
“Reading is So Hot!”
A year ago, virtually everyone had left reading instruction improvement for dead. Massive cuts to Reading First seemed to trump whatever data the states or the U.S. Department of Education were putting out on reading scores. The appearance of flat NAEP reading scores only added to the sentiment. And even those optimists looking for NCLB 2.0 to be passed this year haven’t spent much time talking about the RF component of the law.
But over the weekend, The Washington Post put reading instruction clearly back on the reform frontburner. Saturday brought an op-ed from E.D. Hirsch, Jr., the chairman of the Core Knowledge Foundation. Hirsch’s premise is simple — if we expect schools to meet AYP on reading, we need to provide greater focus and gain greater understanding of comprehension skills. But more simply, we need a national commitment to building vocabulary and reading comprehension in all students.
Today’s Post has op-eds by Howard Gardner and Susan Jacoby, both discussing our national need to read. Gardner talks of the end of literacy. Jacoby of the dumbing of America. Both embracing a similar theme that reading skills lead to success.
All three, of course, are correct. Reading skills are the core to student achievement and successful lives. While critics of Reading First have dubbed the program a “phonics” program, the initiative was always based on an approach that included equal priority to phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. So what does this renewed attention on reading comprehension and ability tell us?
First, reading skill acquisition is not limited to the reading or English/Language Arts classroom. Reading skills are also acquired through content areas like science and social studies. That is why such a focus has been paid to reading at grade level by fourth grade. Students need those reading skills to achieve in their science, history, and even math classes.
Second, reading instruction is a team sport. Yes, teachers need to do whatever they can to build reading skills — particularly comprehension — in all students. Parents and families bear a similar responsibility. They need to model good reading behavior. They need to encourage their kids. And they need to be aware of their kids’ strengths and weaknesses, and do what they can to improve on the latter.
Finally, comprehension is king. Hirsch is correct. We can get kid to memorize vocabulary words, but if they don’t understand what they are reading, what good is it? As we get more sophisticated in our reading assessments, student reading skills are measured on their ability to independently read a text and demonstrate they understand what they read. Knowing letter sounds and vocabulary words are important components to reading. Successful reading, though, can only truly be measured through comprehension.
Where does it all leave us? Reading skills are just as important today as they have ever been. Such skills are successfully obtained when instruction is focused on all five of the key components to research-based reading. And we can’t let anyone forget either. Reading instruction should still rule the reform roost. Comprehension skills should be the measure of effective instruction.
Unlike Gardner and Jacoby, Eduflack isn’t ready to proclaim the end of literacy or the dumbing of America. There are too many good educators, too many good researchers, and too many good minds committed to improving reading instruction in the United States. But if Eduflack is to hold that optimism, we must redouble our efforts to get scientifically based research, proven-effective instruction, relevant professional development, and good ole good books into every classroom.
If we are to be a nation of readers, we need the skill, the passion, and the texts to prove Gardner and Jacoby wrong. And we have miles to go in that regard.
Telling a Good Story
We’re all familiar with the phrase, “if it bleeds, it leads.” The thought behind it is if something horrible happens (particularly something horrible with great art), then it is front-page worthy. A tragedy makes great news. Scandal makes great copy. An official getting caught doing something wrong is a great news hook.
Over at This Week in Education, Alexander Russo has a list of the education-related news stories from the past month (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/thisweekineducation/upload/2007/05/big_stories_of_the_month/May%202007%20News%20%26%20TWIE%20Posts.doc) It should come as no surprise that this list is full of scandal, wrongdoing, and general negativity. NCLB reauthorization and Capitol Hill hearings figure prominently, as do schools closing, programs being abandoned, and teachers being fired. There are some exceptions, but pointing out the failings in our education system seems to be driving education coverage as a whole. And Eduflack is just as guilty.
Are there no “good” stories out there on education reform? I’ll be honest, I’ve been struggling for the last week to find some examples of reform done good anywhere. Maybe it is the end of the school year. Maybe folks have tired of education issues for now. Maybe the current NCLB struggles have sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. But I am desparate for a good story.
Why should we care? Don’t we have an obligation to seek the truth? With taxpayer dollars going into education reform, isn’t it a moral imperative that keep a watchful eye on the field and point out where we take a wrong step or where we may be headed down a rabbit hole we simply cannot emerge from?
At the end of the day, communications is good storytelling. You need a protagonist. You need a challenge he is trying to overcome. You need obstables that may prevent him from succeeding. And then you need SUCCESS. Take a look at any good children’s book or Disney movie, and you’ll see those steps are the key to telling any good story. Likewise, they are the key to effectively communicating education reform.
I’ll beat the dead horse. Let’s take Reading First as our example. The U.S. Department of Education can clamor about longitudinal research statistics and disagregated data until they are blue in the face. The most successful RF story is one President Bush told several years ago at a town hall meeting at NIH. He introduced a teacher from the South. Her class was struggling. Virtually no students were reading at grade level. School district was poor. Students weren’t necessarily getting the encouragement and support they needed from home. But this teacher was determined they would read. She implemented scientifically based reading instruction, knowing the research showed it would work with kids like hers. She provided one-to-one interventions when necessary. Over time, she started to see the results. Soon, all of her kids were reading. They had found a passion for learning. They had an opportunity to succeed in both school and life. The could achieve … thanks to Reading First and scientifically based reading.
Sure, it may be a little sappy. But personalization and storytelling make it compelling. And it talks about complex policy in a way the average American can understand. And it stays positive. There may be challenges. There may be obstacles. But our protagonist perseveres. That’s successful communication, and that’s a story many of us would want to read each morning with our coffee (or Diet Coke).
Reading First: Congressional Punching Bag?
Reading skills are non-negotiables when it comes to student achievement. If you can’t read at grade level by fourth grade, academic struggles start to expand exponentially. Kids start falling behind in math, social studies, science, and every subject in between. You can’t learn if you can’t read. And you certainly can’t succeed without reading.
Sure, we all know this. And Eduflack has written until he has been blue in the knuckles about the fact that Reading First works. Putting research-proven instruction in the classroom works. And successful implementation of SBRR boosts student achievement. No ifs, ands, or buts.
That’s why it is so disheartening to see members of Congress — our elected representatives — to continue to use Reading First as a PR punching bag. Need to make a rhetorical point? Attack RF. Need to gain PR attention? Attack RF. Want to secure some extra federal dollars for the folks back home? Attack RF.
In previous postings, I’ve commended Secretary Spellings for pointing out the error in Chairman Obey’s RF-slashing ways, reminding him of how much he would cost the good people of Wisconsin. Madame Secretary, it’s now time to step up and remind the good people of your home state of the same. The Texas Congressional delegation has come out swinging.
Late last week, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas got an amendment passed in the House that cuts nearly $50 million more from Reading First. Not huge money, no, but a symbolic stroke that sends the wrong message to her constituents in the greater Dallas Metroplex. In Dallas, reading must no longer be fundamental.
Johnson’s reasoning — she wanted level funding for the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education program. Read her press release (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/07192007a.html) and she is proud of the new funding she has secured, in an attempt to restore level funding for social skills training. But notice she never says what pot of money she is taking from? Don’t want to tell those kids or their parents in Dallas or DeSoto that you’ve just taken away money for that reading coach, huh?
I don’t doubt that it is important to teach kids that drugs are wrong. But isn’t it more important for kids to be able to read the brochures and websites promoting safe schools? Shouldn’t a child be able to read a label to know its drugs, and not candy? Of course.
As Congress looks to reauthorize NCLB, I’ve got a novel approach to NCLB PR and marketing. Let’s focus on the positive. Let’s talk about results. Let’s key in on replicable programs that can be implemented in schools and classrooms around the nation. It’s time to let Reading First stand on its achievement merits, and not on its administrative mis-steps.
It may very well be important to level fund safe schools. But what message do you send to schools, advocates, and the education community when you are doing it at the expense of a program that has already been slashed nearly 40 percent? And when you do it from a program that is proven effective?
There’s $63 billion currently in the proposed Education budget. How many of those dollars are earmarked for programs that are proven to work? How many of those dollars are going to programs that are essential building blocks for every child, in every school, in every community across the country? Reading First needs to stop being a rhetorical punching bag for the doubters and the critics. It is time for RF to hit back.
Standing Up to the Anti-NCLB Bullies
Eduflack is just sick of NCLB bashing. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it. How can anyone be against boosting student performance, ensuring that what works is what is used in our classrooms, that teachers are qualified to teach, and that we actually measure how effective we are? This should be a no-brainer. Folks should be lining up 100 at a time to ensure that NCLB is implemented with fidelity in their school and in every school across the country. A high-quality education is the greatest gift anyone can receive. And everyone should receive it.
That said, I felt a warmness in my heart yesterday when I saw the launch of NCLB Works! For those who have missed it, check it out at http://www.biz4achievement.org/take_action/support.php.
For now, let’s give the media the benefit of the doubt that they will give the creation of this group the media attention it deserves. After all, NCLB critics seem to get banner headlines and 20 inches whenever they want to grouse about the law. Only seems fair that a group with this gravitas, coming together to “reauthorize and strengthen No Child Left Behind,” should garner equal time.
Regardless, the NCLB Works! initiative deserves some early round high marks. Based on the preliminary stages, it is clear that the group’s organizers get it, at least communications-wise. Why?
* They assembled a broad coalition of business, policy, civil rights, and community groups, erecting a large tent to show the genuine, large-scale support for NCLB’s goals
* They offer clear messaging. NCLB Works! has nailed their eight theses to the schoolhouse door. Clear goals. Goals that touch multiple constituencies. Goals that are both achievable and necessary.
* They’re starting to personalize the story. By gathering and distributing success stories, NCLB Works! is moving this from a debate of researchers to a discussion of the people. They remember that at the end of the day, NCLB succeeds when kids achieve.
Eduflack gives them a gold star for their communications prep work. Now let’s see how they perform in the lightning round. It’s one thing to assemble a strong introduction, as they have. The real communications challenge is how they move this forward. How do they boost their ranks of supporters? How do they get the media and policymakers to take notice and act on their recommendations? How do they ensure that NCLB is strengthened? How do they cement NCLB’s legacy as a driver of student improvement and long-term academic success?
Looking at its roster of members, NCLB Works! is definitely up to the rhetorical and political challenge. And I bet there are many others (including Eduflack) who are willing and eager to raise a flag for the cause.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 