Spellings

Marketing NCLB

Eduflack AFT, Marketing, NCLB, NEA, PR, Spellings

On several occasions, Eduflack has advocated for a national “marketing” effort for NCLB, seeing public support and demand for the law as one of the only means to get it reauthorized with real improvements, but without significant overhaul.  Earlier this week, a reader asked, “Wonder what I would write for a NCLB marketing campaign. Isn’t Spellings a walking sound bite?”

Anyone who has been reading the ed blogs — particularly Alexander Russo’s — knows there’s been a lot of talk about the teacher unions’ ability to scuttle any talk of NCLB reauthorization this year.  AFT and NEA deserve a lot of credit for their execution of a good communications strategy.  They were able to control the NCLB story, keeping it an inside baseball discussion and limiting to a small collection of policy wonks, education organizations, researchers, and, at times, ed bloggers.  Thus it was easy for the House and Senate decisionmakers to table the issue for a new year.  The unions planned and executed an effort  that worked.  The set a goal, the set the terms of debate, and they dominated the discussion.  That’ll get you victory on just about any stage.

Which gets us back to the question about a marketing campaign.  Are communications victories won by sound bite, or won by solid strategy?  If we go with the former, Margaret Spellings should indeed be taking a victory lap on NCLB reauthorization.  Last year, she deemed the law, like Ivory soap, 99.99% effective.  And this year, she’s had many a good turn of phrase with the education media, the general media, Jon Stewart, and countless others.  Yes, she knows her message, nows how to stick to it, and knows how to get folks to listen to it.

The NCLBers are fine when it comes to message.  The law works.  It’s effective.  We have data to prove it.  Education improvement shouldn’t be flavor of the month.  Et cetera, et cetera.  But message is one of the last pieces to the effective strategy.  And in many ways, the U.S. Department of Education has skipped over many of the needed steps, in the hopes of advancing directly to Boardwalk and Park Place.

What’s missing?  Eduflack suggests a few key components to a solid communications strategy:

* Goals — Media coverage is not a goal for a communications plan.  Goals are things like effective implementation, reauthorization, teacher recruitment, etc.  Any campaign needs clear and achievable goals.  And we must recognize we can’t be everything to everybody.  If we have multiple goals, we may need multiple strategies to get there.

* Analysis and Application of Research — No, I’m not talking the student achievement data.  Year after year, we get public opinion surveys from PDK, NEA, and others charting NCLB satisfaction.  That data should be analyzed, broken down, and used as a foundation for communications planning.  It tells you what messages work, and what don’t.  And it provides third-party validation for communications activities.

* Audience Identification and Segmentation — Who are we talking to?  For years, NCLB was a dialogue between ED and educational researchers.  It should be a discussion on Main Street USA, not in the ivory towers.  Who is important to getting the law effectively implemented?  Who is important to getting it reauthorized?  It’s parents, teachers, business leaders, and community leaders across the country.  It may be easier dealing with the AFT then rank-and-file teachers, but those individual teachers are the ones who carry the message into the classroom.

* Message Development — Some like to call these sound bites, but sound bites are canned sentences.  Messages are the themes that all should be communicating.  Whether it be the SecEd or the Secretary of Labor talking about jobs, the message needs to be on the need for NCLB, the progress to date, and the impact it will have on education and economy for decades to come.

* Relationship Development — Be it the media, influencers, organizational leaders, or the like, relationships are key.  The days when ED could exclude organizations from the debate are over.  They need all the help they can get on NCLB, and need to build the relationships that result in that help.

Then we get into the PR 101.  Media relations.  Public events.  Conferences.  New media/Internet.  Speaking opportunities.  Etc.  These are the tactical pieces that ED tends to do well.  The key is to bring them together under one umbrella, so all activities are working toward a singular, clear goal.  If the tactic doesn’t help us reach the goal, then it isn’t necessarily worth doing.  Time is precious.  We use it on those activities that make a difference.

This is just the early outline of what an NCLB marketing plan needs to focus on.  Sound bites are great, but they are a tactic, not a strategy.  Just like the law itself, an NCLB communications plan needs goals.  It needs methods of measurement.  It needs feedback loops.  It needs highly qualified professionals.  It needs accountability.

Get a half-dozen communications professionals (with education policy knowledge) in a room for a day.  Set some programmatic goals.  Embrace the Yankelovich model for changing public behavior.  And you could have a real blueprint for selling NCLB across the nation, and moving the debate from inside the ed blob to onto Main Street USA. 

NCLB is all about doing what works.  This sort of approach works.  And it may be the only way we see NCLB reauthorization before the end of 2009. 

“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.
 

In Search of Relevancy

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Spellings

It’s been a busy week in education, what with SAT scores released, the Miller-McKeon draft dropped, and classes starting in school districts across the nation.  It can be a tough time to gain some meaningful news coverage this year, even if you are the educator-in-chief.

We’ve all commented on the incredible media coverage Margaret Spellings has received since becoming Secretary of Education.  She has been focused on issues, level-headed in her comments, and in control of the situation.  Even as Reading First scandals swirled and IG reports became best-sellers, Spellings knew how to stay on message, reframe the issues, and remain relevant.

But this week, Spellings has Eduflack scratching his head.  First, she’s up in Alaska, doing a day of NCLB “tours.”  While I understand the call to support a Republican Senator in trouble, are the votes in the Alaskan congressional delegation and the public opinion in our northern-most state really a pressing need for the U.S. Department of Education?  And if the goal was to focus on rural education issues, there are far more effective ways to draw attention the challenges of rural ed than leaving the lower 48.

And then there was the Q&A in today’s USA Today.  Spellings has always played well with USA Today, and the newspaper has always had a clear understanding of the intent of the law, the progress it has made, and the challenges Spellings and company face during reauthorization and beyond. 

Check out the Q&A, though.  http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/nclb-is-working.html?csp=34  It is an interesting read, sure.  But there seems to be a disconnect between the interview and the very real issues policymakers are dealing with on NCLB and related issues.  There was no sense of urgency.  There was no sense of the push to improve the law.  There was no unwavering commitment to improving the quality, delivery, and impact of education for all students.  It reads more like a coffee shop chat than it does a call to action to more than a million readers.

Could it be that the U.S. Secretary of Education has lost her relevancy in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? 

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.

Droppin’ Out

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Spellings

Eduflack is shocked, shocked, to hear that there is no U.S. participation in the upcoming 12th grade TIMSS.  That’s the big news that Newsweek “broke” late last week (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20205125/site/newsweek/).  Influencers like Ed in ’08 have commented on it this week.

Of course, Eduflack reflected on the implications of the United States dropping out of TIMSS two months ago (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/06/11/opting-out-timss-style.aspx), following a Sarah Sparks article on the issue in Education Daily in early June.  We said it then, and we’ll say it now — It sends the wrong message at the wrong time. 

At a time when we are talking about increased rigor in the schools and the ability to compete for jobs across the world, comparing our science and math abilities to like-minded students in China, India, and Germany is a needed tool.  

I’d like to believe NCES and NSF and others that we don’t want to compete against a B-list international pool and that our educational resources, both financial and human, are better spent in other areas.  But at a time where we are all abuzz about student achievement and multiple measures and global competitiveness, it is the wrong message to just say “no” and close the door.  If not TIMSS, offer a better solution.  Any alternative will do. 
    

“We Want NCLB” Cont.

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Spellings

We’ve talked about the ETS study, the Scripps Howard study, and the PDK study on public opinion of NCLB.  A mixed bag, yes.  Eduflack’s underlying takeaway remains that the more the general public knows about NCLB, the more supportive they are of the law.  (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/06/25/getting-to-know-you-.aspx)

Today, we have a new study to underscore that notion.  Education Next magazine has released new findings from an NCLB study led by Harvard University’s JFK School and conducted by researchers at Harvard, University of Chicago, and Brown University.  http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/8806742.html  Special thanks to Alexander Russo and This Week in Education for throwing the spotlight on the study.

What does it tell us?  Sure, it demonstrates that the American people generally support NCLB and want to see it reauthorized, despite what some in the vocal minority may say.  Interestingly, folks seem to be more supportive of NCLB than they are of their own local schools.  This is a far cry from data in the early 1990s, where people said the public schools were in disarray, but their own local schools were doing great.

While that’s all well and good, the study’s most interesting data comes in the area of accountability.  If you read the popular media, you would think there was an Evita-like uprising against testing and the quantitative assessment of student achievement.  It is thought that most Americans are out there bemoaning teaching to the test, worried that we’re overtesting our kids, and raising their collective blood pressures about “high stakes” testing.

In reality, we want more accountability, more data, and national standards.  Quoting Education Next’s announcement:


  • Nearly three-quarters of survey respondents support having a single national proficiency standard in public education rather than letting every state set its own proficiency standards.
  • 81 percent support requiring students in certain grades to pass an exam before they proceed to the next grade; 85 percent support requiring students to pass an exam before graduating from high school.
  • 60 percent support the practice of publishing the average test performance of each school’s students.
Wow.  Imagine that.  We want national standards.  We want accountability.  We want to know how our schools and our students are performing.  It’s almost like the public expects that we are spending our education dollars effectively and are making sure that our schools are doing what works.  What a novel concept.

Kudos to Education Next and the Hoover Institution for injecting this needed public opinion data into the debate.  It only further supports what Eduflack has been writing until he is blue in the knuckles.  We all share the goals and mission of NCLB.  We want to see our students succeed, we want to measure that success, and we want to replicate those successes where schools and students are struggling.  And we want to ensure that our child can compete again one from a neighboring city or from one across the country. 

Hopefully, the U.S. Department of Education is listening to what the public wants.  We all can hear the footsteps of NCLB reauthorization approaching.  That plodding horse has to choose between two paths — weakening the law or strengthening it.  Looking at EdNext’s research, along with ETS, we should choose the latter without hesitation.  It’s what works.  It’s what is best for the future of our nation.  And it’s what the public (those footing the bill) want.

So let me pose a question from the NCLB 1.0 exit exam:

NCLB is up for reauthorization.  ED wants it reauthorized.  The American public supports reauthorization.  Data demonstrates that NCLB is working, and the more information about NCLB that is distributed, the more support the law gains (outside of Congress).  Should Secretary Spellings and ED:

A. Launch an aggressive marketing/PR campaign highlighting the goals of NCLB, its successes to date, and specific improvements focused on greater accountability and student success
B. Get defensive about NCLB attacks, trying to answer criticisms one by one, being sure to repeat the attack before they say it isn’t true
C. Do nothing, hoping all the controversies disappear and are replaced by lollipops and rainbows

Anyone who has been in the political trenches knows there is only one right answer to this question.  If you want an “A” for reauthorization efforts, you need to strongly answer A on the ole bubble sheet.  If we truly want to strengthen the law and provide all students an opportunity for success, the time has come, oh ED of mine, to start selling NCLB.

We’ve got a great product with strong customer support and strong proof it lives up to its claims.  Lay those puzzle pieces together, and the PR strategy almost writes itself. 

Putting Our Money on Achievement

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

For years, discussions about the successes and failures of NCLB have focused on what is happening behind the schoolhouse doors during school hours.  This is the way it should be.  The goal of true education reform is to improve the quality of instruction, measured by improved student achievement for all.  Simple.  To the point.  Reform = improvement.

But what about those kids who are still left behind, those in failing schools that, for one reason or another, have been unable to improve their instruction and their student achievement?  For those students, we have supplemental education services.

USA Today has a good he said-she said on the issue (assuming the he is Richard Whitmire and knowing the she is Margaret Spellings).  http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/06/our_view_on_no_.html#more


Eduflack often preaches the virtues of finding areas of common ground.  It is the easiest way to build support for an issue and to mitigate the power of the dedicated opposition.  Articulate the points where you agree, and the attacks against you seem more like paper cuts than death blows.

We agree that a half-million students are taking advantage of NCLB’s tutoring provisions.  We agree that five times that many students are eligible.  And we agree that such services are necessary to ensure that all students — regardless of AYP status of their neighborhood schools — have access to the learning tools necessary to achieve.

Where do we go from this island of agreement?  USA Today offers two key requirements for moving forward.  We need to hold tutoring programs accountable and we need to make sure they are proven effective.  And that’s where the nation’s newspaper wins the rhetorical day.

For the past six years, we have caged NCLB discussions around two key tenets — accountability and research base.  Adopt programs that work.  Show they work.  Measure they effectiveness.  Repeat, repeat, repeat.  Anyone in the NCLB trenches knows that accountability and proven effective are the keys to success.  And it has been  promoted — rightfully so — in virtually every speech, brochure, website, and piece of paper to come out of ED since 2002.

USA Today reminds us of that, keeping it simple and to the point.  NCLB’s SES program works, but there are too many ineffective programs, too many fly-by-night operators that are trying to take advantage of the NCLB trough.  Just as we expect classroom curriculum to proven to work and assessed, so too should we expect it of federally funded after-school providers.  And those are basic principles — and core messaging — that Spellings and all at ED have and should embrace. 

Unfortunately, Spellings missed a golden opportunity to promote those foundations of NCLB and remind us all of the lasting positive impact of the law.  Instead, she couldn’t let go of the premise that many of our tutoring dollars are currently spent on programs that just don’t work.  She couldn’t ignore the criticism and stay on message.  USA Today served up an easy pitch, and simply fouled it off.    

USA Today’s point was crystal clear — “If a program can’t be proven effective, it should lose the money.”  Eduflack can’t say it any better.  Doesn’t matter if it is tutoring, reading instruction, teacher training, high school improvement, or any of a myriad of education reforms out there.  Success is king.  Prove it works, and you have an effective message.

Now It’s Personal

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

Over the last few months, Eduflack has been hard on Margaret Spellings.  For the past year, the U.S. Department of Education has been a communications fetal position on most reforms.  Given the opportunity to be out in front, defining measures of success with regard to NCLB, Reading First, teacher proficiency, and accountability, ED has generally retreated, leaving it to critics to set the terms and measures of success, and leaving advocates and supporters in the field desperate and hungry for any form of communications support and PR blocking as they work to successfully implement changes that ultimately will improve student performance.

Perhaps Spellings has heard the growing calls for communications support in the field.  Perhaps ED has finally determined that the old plan of putting your head down on the desk until the NCLB criticisms stop just wasn’t going to work.  At a time when folks are wondering if there is the muscle to push NCLB reauthorization through, or if it will be left to another Secretary and another Administration in 2009, Spellings has shown the moxie and communications savoir faire she demonstrated when she first took the helm of the U.S. Department of Education.

If you’ll recall, a few weeks ago the House of Representatives sent a shot across the bow with regard to RF.  (Playing Politics with Reading First)  A bold communications tactic, House appropriators moved to slash $600 million from Reading First to send a message to Spellings on student lending, IG investigations, and concerns of conflicts of interest.  The message was heard around the reading world, with the likes of IRA, SFA, and others joining with Spellings to defend a program that is proven effective in teaching our children to read and provides virtually every student the skills necessary to achieve in school.  We waited with baited breath for Spellings’ response.

Spellings responded, and responded rhetorically strong.  She has finally gotten personal.  And it is just the communications approach she needed in such a situation.  When you make the story relevant to the listener, and relate it in direct terms that they understand and that they know affects them or the people they know, you communicate more effectively than just throwing out facts and figures.  Yes, we know that RF works.  We know SBRR works.  We know that more children know how to read today because of NCLB.  But how do you get Chairman Obey to see that through all of the rhetoric, hyperbole, and vitriol.

Answer — make it personal.  Spellings retort to Obey was a simple one.  If the mis-directed cuts to RF become law, Obey’s home state of Wisconsin loses $8.5 million in RF grants.  That’s less money for books.  Less money for teacher training.  Less money for professional development.  Less money for interventions.  And it is less money for the schools, the classrooms, and the teachers in his state who need it most.

Finally, Spellings has shifted the debate.  The threat isn’t about hurting her or the RF office.  Obey is threatening to take hundreds of millions of dollars from elementary school classrooms, teachers, and kids throughout the nation. 

I’m all for political gamesmanship.  Its a necessary piece of education reform.  But no one should lose sight of the end game — improving education quality and opportunity for all.  Spellings remembered that.  And she reminded Obey of it in the most personal of communications ways, by pasting the cuts smack in the center of his Wisconsin district.

Playing Politics with Reading First

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

For years, Eduflack worked for members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees.  Having seen the annual appropriations process unfold year after year, I had come to the belief that, for the most part, politics had to sit outside the Appropriations Committee’s door.

That is, until this afternoon.  David Hoff has a good synopsis on educationweek.org (http://www.educationweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/08/41budget.h26.html).  The root of Eduflack’s ire.  The U.S. House of Representatives is calling for a 60% cut in Reading First funding for FY2008.

We won’t get into the politics of all this, other than to say that one should be careful with the political symbolism they seek to use, as it may actually become reality.  But the spending games raise an important communication issue — the need to be proactive and define the game.

You’ve heard it here before.  For years now, critics have defined Reading First.  At first, they attacked the personalities behind the law and preached fear about introducing proven instructional approaches to our classrooms.  Over the last year, they have attacked (and rightfully so) the problems with RF implementation, implying that such issues demonstrate that the law doesn’t work.

To the contrary, we have begun seeing significant evidence that Reading First and scientifically based reading research work, and works well.  You can see it in the data released by Spellings before her visit to Capitol Hill.  you can see it in this week’s CEP report.  And you can see it in countless school districts across the nation that have implemented the program with fidelity and have reaped the benefit in terms of student performance.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the message getting out there.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.  To all but the die-hard true believers, RF is a program of conflicts of interest, decrees from on high, and IG reports.  Those exceptions to good work have now become the rule.

Don’t believe it?  Just look at how House Appropriations Chairman David Obey couches the massive cut to a program that works — “This [Reading First] cut will not be restored until we have a full appreciation of the shenanigans that have been going on.”

Doesn’t matter if the program works.  Doesn’t matter if we see student achievement gains, improved teaching, enthusiastic learners, and kids who are reading.  RF is now defined by “shenanigans,” and that’s about as far off message as one can get.

So what can Spellings and her crew do about it?  I refer you back to a previous posting.  Let’s make it positive.  Let’s make it results-based.  Let’s make it personal.  http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/04/11/talking-research.aspx

As an aside, the one positive result, though, of today’s Hill hearing may be its ability to bring parties who have previously been at war with each other together for a common good.  We’ve long talked about the need to build a team of advocates, names that will resonate with key audiences and expand support and enthusiasm for the message and the desired action.  And the larger the tent of advocates, the more effective the communication and the reform.

Those advocates speaking out against the proposed RF cuts demonstrate the program (and scientifically based education in general) has to be working.  In just a few short hours, we have seen individuals who ordinarily wouldn’t share an elevator sharing a common desire to protect RF.  Margaret Spellings (through a spokesperson).  The International Reading Association.  Bob Slavin.  They may have different goals, different views, and different intentions, but they share the view that you don’t cancel the game because you’ve had problems with the turnstiles.  “Shenanigans” around the fringes simply isn’t a reason to deny millions of American students the resources and funding they need to learn to read and to succeed. 

While SFA and IRA and ED and everyone in between may be coming from different perspectives, they all seem to share in the goal that research-proven reading is necessary if our students and schools are to succeed.

I may have just seen a razorback fly by my window, but if RF is able to be bring those disparate, yet passionate, education advocates together, it must be doing something right.

Great Test-pectations

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings, Students

Much of this week’s education attention has been focused on the CEP’s findings that No Child Left Behind is indeed effective.  Though many have gone out of their way to mitigate the findings, offer up alternative explanations, discount the impact, or generally change the fact, one thing is certain.  NCLB does work.  In those states where CEP found student achievement gains, there is only one common denominator — all of those states have made NCLB-based reforms.  NCLB may not be the only reason for the successes, but it is undoubtedly a major driver behind the improvement.

More interesting, though, was Ledge King’s piece (with an assist from Greg Toppo) in USA Today, looking at the broad discrepancies of testing benchmarks across the states.  http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-06-06-schools-main_N.htm 

At the very heart of NCLB was the commitment that every American student deserved the opportunity to succeed.  That was how the law was marketed.  Regardless of race or income or neighborhood, every student is afforded the opportunity to learn, to achieve, and to succeed, both in and beyond their K-12 experience.

But in the Gannett analysis, King finds that such an opportunity is still a goal, and not necessarily a reality.  The beauty of federal education reform is that measures of achievement and success are expected to be uniform.  Instead, as King reports, we see that reading achievement in Mississippi versus achievement in Massachusetts couldn’t be more different.  And those differences are going to be even more acute when it matters — in postsecondary education and in the workplace.

Perhaps that’s part of the problem.  Even for those in the know, NCLB is perceived as an elementary school law.  With its focus on elementary school reading and middle school assessments, it is seen as far more Click, Clack, Moo than The Sun Also Rises.  An unfair focus, sure, but public perception is the new reality.

The thousand-dollar question is how do we take what we know from CEP and others and use it to address the problems that King has identified.  The answer is an easy one.  It may not be one that Secretary Spellings is particularly fond of, but the single greatest way to truly level the playing field and fulfill NCLB’s mission of providing all students an opportunity for success is found in two simple words — national standards.

At the end of the day, student proficiency is student proficiency.  Achievement should not have a geographic accent.  It shouldn’t be mitigated by per-pupil spending ratios.  It shouldn’t be defined by the lowest common denominator.  And it surely shouldn’t be disaggregated away.  Achievement is achievement.  Success is success.  It doesn’t matter if it the MCAS, the SOL, NAEP, or any other single assessment tool.  Student proficiency needs to be a common, universal measure.  It is the only way we can ensure every American student is reading at a proficient level in the fourth grade, prepared for the rigors of our changing high schools, and ready for the opportunities available in either postsecondary education or career.  If education is the great equalizer, its measures of that education need to be equal.

That’s how one effectively sells national standards to the teachers and parents who are skeptical of the federal government’s ability to effectively implement and manage meaningful education reforms.  We don’t want to hear about statistical analyses, variations, and experimental models.  We want to know that if our kid is deemed proficient in reading, that means he is able to read at the same level as an average fourth grader in Oregon, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Mississippi.  When she gets a B in Algebra II, we expect that a B in our school equals a B in LAUSD, Chicago, Dallas ISD, or DC Public Schools.  We might not say it, but we assume our children meet a common standard when their academic abilities are assessed.  And we depend on it, believing those assessments mean our children are able to keep up with any student in college or compete with any graduate for a job.

So how do we talk about it?  At the end of the day, national standards are borne out of national policy.  NCLB is that policy.  Thanks to CEP, EdTrust, and a number of other education organizations, we have our messaging.  It works.  NCLB works.  National education reform works.  Reading First works.  Scientifically based education works.  Results-based teacher training and instruction works. 

It works because it is effective.  It works because it generates results.  It works because it established a national standard for teaching and learning.  And we can now see it working in states, districts, schools, and classrooms just like those in our neighborhood.  No getting around it — NCLB works.

And that’s the marketing slogan.  That’s the soundbite.  That’s the bumper sticker.  NCLB works.  Data proves it.  Teachers and administrators and parents and students have embraced it.  Curriculum and professional development has been built around it.  Critics have tried to tear it down for five years, to little avail.  And you know what, NCLB still works.

The general communications mantra is to keep it simple, and it just doesn’t get any simpler than that.  The law is effective, and there is the data and the emotional connection in classrooms around the country to prove it.  Now ED just needs an effective messenger to deliver it.  How hard can that be?