It’s been a heckuva week for No Child Left Behind. Exhibit One is Alfie Kohn’s Opposing View in the May 31 USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/05/opposing_view_t.html?csp=34) calling for the immediate demolition of NCLB. His reasoning — an emphasis on testing and a flawed study by the Teacher Network that Eduflack had some real issues with the first time around (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/04/03/teach-your-children-well.aspx)
This sort of attack has been waged on NCLB since its inception, and this is hardly Kohn’s first foray into the debate. Perhaps one of the most prominent opponents of testing, he has railed the law for the past five years in his crusade against strict accountability, perpetuating the myth that NCLB was created as some sort of conspiracy to privatize our nation’s public schools. While he spins a gripping tale, Kohn is hardly an impartial observer in this fight.
Exhibit Two is the recent survey from Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University earlier this week stating that a majority of Americans want to either revise or eliminate NCLB. (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/23421)
This should be no surprise to anyone. Do what our friends at This Week in Education did and take a look at media coverage of NCLB. It is virtually all negative. States suing the federal government. Scandals and congressional hearings on potential conflicts of interest. State and local officials bemoaning AYP and student achievement goals. Urban legends of teachers being fired en masse because they fail to meet NCLB standards. If that’s all you see, even the most ardent of NCLB supporters would grow sour on the law.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The largest problem that NCLB reauthorization faces is one of PR and marketing. Secretary Spellings and President Bush have let the opponents of NCLB dictate the terms of the debate for far too long. As a result, NCLB is tagged with all negatives — anti-teacher, unfunded mandate, conflicts of interest, too strictly enforced, and requiring too much from our teachers, schools, and kids. I can probably count on one hand the number of news articles from the past few months that focused on some of the positives — increased student performance, quality teachers in the classroom, effective instruction, and a level educational playing field.
NCLB is not going to win by playing defense. Opposition to the law is growing because we are giving supporters nothing to hold onto. We are failing to provide a rock-solid foundation of mission and results on which to stand. We simply aren’t giving NCLB supporters the results they need to be proud of the law and its results.
What is there to be proud of? What should advocates be talking about?
* Decision-making is now supposed to be based on the research. Only proven-effective methods of instruction should be used in our classrooms. We do what works. No exceptions.
* Our teachers are set up for success. We now make sure that teachers have the background knowledge, pedagogy, and skill to lead a classroom. Those that don’t have access to huge pools of professional development funding. As a result, teachers are both qualified and effective.
* Student achievement is on the rise. We are just now starting to see the effects of Reading First and SBRR. And in those schools and districts where it has been implemented with fidelity, we can see gains in student reading scores. Students can learn to read with effective, proven instruction.
* Data collection is a priority. We can’t improve without good numbers highlighting our strengths and weaknesses. NCLB has ensured that schools, districts, and states are now collecting the data we need to effectively assess instruction. We’re effectively disaggregating that data. And we’re now able to apply the proper interventions to further improve instruction in our schools.
* We simply expect more. For decades, we have taught to the lowest common denominator, worried that we were asking or expecting too much from our teachers and our students. Today, we have raised expectations. We talk about rigor and achievement. And as a result, we give virtually every student an opportunity to succeed in both school and in life.
If we really want to shift the debate on NCLB, and begin talking about the issues that are truly important to the success of our schools and our nation, we should focus on the 800-pound gorilla in the room — national standards. Yes, it will raise the ire of those on both the left and the right. But at the end of the day, state growth models state-by-state negotiations of standards simply aren’t going to cut it. If the United States is to truly compete — both educationally and academically — with the likes of China, India, and rising countries in the Middle East — we need to adopt serious national standards or benchmarks. It is the only way we can ensure that the brand — American education — means the same in rural Alabama, South Central LA, Washington, DC, and the North Shore of Massachusetts.
Let’s see a presidential candidate, any presidential candidate, take that issue on. Break from the educational norms and expectations and start speaking on a bold idea that could make a real difference. Go on, I dare ya!
Spellings
Make ’em laugh
When you think of cutting edge humor on the topics of the day, the first two names you think of are Jon Stewart and … Margaret Spellings? Greg Toppo of USA Today asks the important “why” question. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-21-spellings-daily-show_N.htm?csp=34
While yours truly is quoted in Toppo’s piece on Spellings’ appearance on the Daily Show, it forced me to think a little more about the question. What exactly is the communications benefit of opening one up to Stewart?
As always, we have three simple answers:
* First, Spellings is trying put the scandals behind her. After IG investigations and new concerns on student loans, Spellings and her team have been playing defense for well over a year. Opening oneself up to Stewart’s probing, laughing with the audience when he points to the failings of the U.S. Department of Education, and then offering a public “we’ll try harder next time” allows Spellings to declare these issues over with. She’s talked them out with the national media. She’s met with the trade media. She’s convened the bloggers. Now she’s doing the comedy shows. It is time to move on to a new topic. She’s exhausted the issue. Nothing left to say, and no one left to say it to.
* Second, she needs to personalize the issue. When Spellings first took office, she entered with press any public official would envy. Glowing profiles in major publications. Nonexistent criticisms in the media. A general lovefest. Today, no mention of Spellings or ED is complete without the terms “scandal” or “IG.” Putting Spellings out in front reminds us of the person behind ED. It no longer is the bureaucracy that has corrupted student loans or “the man” who has botched RF implementation. Now, you are attacking a nice woman who reminds you of your next-door-neighbor or your kid’s teacher or that woman who sings at the church. An appearance on the Daily Show reminds us of who is really behind the curtain. And she comes with a fairly decent Q rating.
* Finally, it has reached the stage where any publicity is good publicity. Consider this the policymaker’s 10 steps to media recovery. She has listened to the criticism. She has vowed to follow the IG’s reccs. She has stood up before Congress and the media. And tonight she is standing up to a top Bush critic, probably second only to the likes of Michael Moore and Al Franken. This is win/win for her. If Stewart makes her look foolish (which he likely won’t) then it was to be expected. If she does well (which we should expect) then she stood in the lion’s den and survived. She showed she was fearful of no issue and no man, and we credit her with suffering the slings and arrows. She gets good pub for putting herself out there in the first place.
At the end of the day, we can only hope her public affairs team has properly trained her for the Daily Show, giving her talking points, writing some witty zingers and responses, and drilling her until she is comfortable with dry, wry, sarcastic humor. She will survive, and she may even make them laugh.
NCLB 2.0
What does the future hold for NCLB? The magic 8 ball is telling far too many people to ask again later, but over the weekend, the NYT offered its analysis on the tough road to reauthorization. The song being sung is not a new one, but those in the chorus seem to continue to grow.
Here’s the story … http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/education/07child.html?_r=2&ref=education&oref=slogin&oref=slogin.
But what does it all tell us? Can opposition from both the left and right really signal the end to NCLB? Three simple facts for us all to consider (or remember):
* First, NCLB is simply the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. NCLB is the wrapping and marketing strategy put around the reauthorization in 2002. NCLB is going nowhere. ESEA will be reauthorized. NCLB will fight another day.
* Second, NCLB and local control are not mutually exclusive. Localities should still control what happens in their schools, but the feds need to hold them accountable.
* Third, and perhaps most significant, the U.S. Department of Education and NCLB supporters are still letting the opposition define the debate. The NYT does an excellent job pointing out NCLB’s shortcomings and where pockets of resistance are coming from. What is missing, though, is how those critics would improve the law (other than “give us the money and don’t ask us about it after we cash the check”).
It isn’t a popular position these days, but I am a big supporter of NCLB. And I believe in the law for a few simple reasons. It assures an effective education to ALL students, particularly those who can most benefit from proven-effective instruction. It calls for federal education dollars to be spent on instructional practices that are proven effective, and not on the latest silver bullets. And it puts students first — forcing us to think about education reform in terms of how it boosts student achievement and prepares all kids for the opportunities and challenges of the 21st century.
Most importantly, it works. Take Reading First. If we look at those districts that have implemented SBRR with fidelity and are effectively measuring its impact, we see it works. It works with students in urban, suburban, and rural schools. It works with white, Black, and Latino students. It just works all around.
So what do NCLB supporters do with all this? How do we build a better NCLB? And more importantly, how do we talk about a better NCLB? If the Department of Education is looking to shore up the status quo, it will fall to other voices — including early advocates like Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller — to step up and truly advocate for the law. As is typical for me, I’ve got three key reccs:
* Be bold. Many critics want to tinker around the edges, rearranging components with the hopes of offending fewer constituents than we are offending today. Reauthorization should be about improvement. Meaningful improvement requires bold action and bold words. Let’s increase NCLB funding to greatly enhance accountability and assessment measures at the state and local level, not weaken accountability. Let’s strengthen HQT, adding measures of effectiveness, not lessen our expectations of teachers.
* Be visionary. Reauthorization allows us to build on the strong foundations of the original NCLB. How do we make it even stronger? What areas require enhancement? Build on Early Reading First and Reading First to extend through adolescence. Address the unaddressed issues of ELL. Provide real, tangible, actionable school choice for those who need it, and take revolutionary action to fix those schools too many students are leaving. Propose something, anything, that will change the world and improve public education for each and every student in the nation.
* Be unapologetic. NCLB works. It is proven effective. Let’s strengthen the law, not weaken it. Let’s enhance accountability, not provide more loopholes. Let’s raise hope, not lower expectations. We should not apologize for expecting much from our teachers, from our schools, and from our students. We should demand more public education, not less. Instead of letting critics set the terms of debate, advocates should make clear what NCLB stands for, why it is important, and how we make it even better, both short term and long term.
We can all agree there is room for improvement in NCLB. If we are to strengthen the law, we need to enhance and expand on the good parts, fix those that are lagging behind, and inspire more parents, teachers, students, and community leaders to do whatever is necessary to wholeheartedly move NCLB’s rhetoric and legislative language into true, effective practice.
Finding One’s Voice
Messaging. Framing. Talking Points. Guiding Questions. Bridging. It doesn’t matter what you call it. Communicators and strategists spend a lot of time thinking through what is said, whether it be about education reform, healthcare, or the latest widget. We often spend so much time focused on the “what” that we forget all about the “who.” This is particularly true as we talk about reforms surrounding NCLB.
It took a visit with an old friend from my NRP days to remind just how important the “who” is in communicating education reform. For a reform effort to take hold and be successful, the right person (or persons) need to be saying the right things. The right message but the wrong messenger, you fall flat. Likewise, the right messenger with the wrong message loses all credibility.
And just who is that right voice? The effective messenger carries some distinctive characteristics:
* Credibility — A simple truth. One needs to be believable. One needs to be knowledgeable. One needs to be trustworthy. If you are advocating change, you can’t afford to have audiences question your statements before they message has taken hold. My first mentor on Capitol Hill had a simple instruction for me, “Don’t ever lie … ever.” While it offered as advice for dealing with the media, it holds for any advocacy effort, working with any audience. One just has to be credible. Hands down, with NCLB our most credible voices are the teachers and parents on the frontlines of learning.
* Likeability — One can be credible and trustworthy, and still disliked. It is unfortunate, but all too real. A good messenger needs to be liked by those she is talking to. In a previous life, I used to do a great deal of crisis communications for hospitals and healthsystems. I would always ask for a nurse as a messenger. We trust doctors. We know they are credible. But we LIKE nurses. They are empathetic. They understand us. They have a likeability factor that is unmatched. Same is true for most teachers and parents. We may respect a superintendent, but we generally like our child’s teacher.
* Relatability — This is probably the hardest to quantify. I’ve conducted scores of focus groups with teachers and parents around the country, and the effect of education reform comes down to a few simple questions. “Will it work in a school like mine? In a class like mine? With kids like mine?” Stakeholders want to see themselves in those who are advocating change. Parents need to hear from other parents. The Latino community needs to hear from the Latino community. And, yes, business leaders need to hear from other business leaders. If I am being asked to change my thinking and my behavior, I want to hear from someone who has walked in my shoes, shared my thoughts, and understands my hesitations.
A wide chorus of voices is important to any debate. But with all of the discourse on NCLB, Reading First, research data, accountability, and the like, we need to hear from the right voices, not just from those contributing to the white noise of the day. Researchers and government officials all play an important role in improving our education system. There is no question about that. But for real reforms to take lasting root in schools and communities across the nation, we need to hear from those most affected by the reforms.
Advocating for Early Reading First? Let’s hear from the mother in Arizona whose child has gained the developmental learning skills to succeed when he hits elementary school. School choice? Let’s hear from the reverend in Atlanta whose has seen more and more parents asking the right questions to ensure their kids are getting an effective education. Testing? Let’s hear from the second grade teacher in Pennsylvania who now has the data to key in on the learning skills many in her class seem to be missing.
We need to hear from those in the game, those teachers, parents, administrators, and such who are swinging for the fences and doing whatever is necessary to boost student achievement in the classrooms. Those are the voices that launch successful reform. Those are the voices that move us to improve. Those are the voices we need most.
At the end of the day, the success of NCLB will not be heard from those at the U.S. Department of Education or at one of the national education organizations. NCLB success will be heard in the words and actions of those in our local communities and our neighborhood schools. When they are trumpeting the benefits and impact of scientifically based education research and a renewed commitment to accountability, then the law has truly succeeded.
Putting Reading First?
When the history books are closed, we will find that Reading First improved the reading skills of U.S. students. It is based on solid research. It is proven success in schools and classrooms across the nation. And there is clear data a scientifically based approach to reading skill acquisition rooted in phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension is the most effective way — without question — to teach kids to read.
So how can a program with so many successful attributes be in danger of failing? When it is unable to translate that effectiveness into a public perception of support. Recent reports from the IG and GAO have pointed to potential implementation problems and concerns about the perceptions of possible conflicts of interest. Such worries put RF under a real microscope. It calls for greater scrutiny and adhering to a higher bar of both achievement and standards of quality. So what comes next?
The Associated Press provides the facts: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=78&pid=&sid=1102760&page=1
Full disclosure, I am one of the individuals quoted in this article. And I feel strongly about the public perception of this revelation. At the end of the day, few people care that RMC Research secured a small portion of the RF assessment contract. Even fewer choose to understand the process by which contractors and subcontractors (such as RMC) secure such contracts from the federal government. But for an organization, like RMC, committed to seeing Reading First succeed, this sends the WRONG message, arming RF and scientifically based reading critics with the ammo they need to continue to question the program as a whole.
Federal contracting is best explained by the federal government. But what lessons can we learn from the facts uncovered by the AP?:
* Independent third party means independent third party. No one is questioning RMC’s ability to assess a federal education program. But independent third party assessment means just that. Contractors involved in the planning, implementation, training, and technical assistance of a program should not assume a role to evaluate the success of that same program. How can we trust the impartiality of a contractor who was previously paid to help build what they are now evaluating?
* Scientists have forgotten the science. NCLB was passed on the presumption that education research needs to undergo the same protocols and be held to the same standards as that which passes through NIH. Can anyone point to an NIH grant program where the same contractor was paid to develop a clinical study, then paid again to evaluate their own work?
* Size doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if the contract was for $1.5 million, $15 million, or $15. When a program is as scrutinized as RF is, third-party assessment needs to be as clean as the newborn snow. Such a relationship just makes it too easy to feel like the wolf is guarding the RF henhouse.
* Set high expectations … and exceed them. There is an axiom in business that you want to underpromise and overdeliver. When it comes to RF, we now need to both overpromise and overdeliver. If implemented effectively and with fidelity, RF will improve reading skills for virtually every student in the country. That is now the expectation, and it can’t get any higher. Now we need to exceed that. That happens by demonstrating measurable results, being able to replicate those results, and having decisionmakers embrace them and put them into place in other schools and other districts. That is the only way RF will truly change the fabric of our nation’s education system. That only happens if we all trust the data and those delivering it to us.
For years, we have said the success of RF lies in the hands of those school administrators, teachers, and parents who were putting it to use on the front lines. The focus was on communicating with those audiences. How do we get them to embrace RF? How do we get them to recognize the need? And, most importantly, how do we get them to put it into practice?
Today, though, the success of RF lies squarely on the shoulders of Margaret Spellings. The IG, the GAO, and the media have given educators plenty of reasons to question Reading First. We don’t trust our decisionmakers, and without trust, we aren’t willing to put our own necks on the line to change. For the average educator, it is now easier to protect the status quo, and believe that RF will go with the way of the dodo, replaced by the next latest and greatest.
So it is up to Spellings and her team to change that public perception — a tall order to say the least. But it is achievable through three key steps:
* Take responsibility for the past. President Truman had the buck stopping with him. Spellings must do the same. She should accept personal responsibility for all the mistakes and misperceptions of the past six years. With that responsibility, she has learned a great deal, and is taking all steps possible to improve the law and help our nation’s teachers and students.
* Speak … and act with authority. This is more than apologizing or discussing the issue at a conference. For years now, Spellings and her team have acted out of a defensive posture. It is almost as if they hope any mention of RF will just go away. Instead, they need to embrace the law. In those schools where it is implemented with fidelity, we are seeing demonstrable improvements. Now is the time to be bold. Embrace RF and its original goals. Demand expansion. Demand greater accountability. Show that the U.S. Department of Education is a partner in this effort, not simply the wielder of the stick.
* Move the discussion out of DC and into our schools. Goodbye, SW DC, hello Main Street USA. Get into the field and learn (and promote) how it is working, where it is working, and who is responsible. Success is because of educators in the field. Share the credit with those on the ground. Doing so is like throwing a pebble into a lake. The impact will ripple out, ultimately hitting all shores. That is how RF, and NCLB, can have a lasting impact on our schools and really establish a legacy for this Administration.
Conflicts of interest, debates on contractors and subcontractors, and technical assistance instructions are the insidest of inside baseball. It is time for Reading First to move onto a different field, and play the game that was meant to be played. The law was written because of a national commitment to ensure every child learns to read, and every student had access to proven-effective instruction. Let’s remember that. Reading First is a simple message — its about students, and its about results.
Higher Ed Reform, The Saga Continues
Inside Higher Ed (www.insidehighered.com) today was good enough to share the list of the 200 or so individuals who will all be attending Secretary Spellings’ Higher Education Summit. (http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/20/summit) The initial grumbling, at least that that Inside Higher Ed is hearing, is that faculty members and faculty unions are not represented. No shock there, faculty often grumble if there is a party and their invite is lost in the mail.
What disappoints me is the absence of communicators on the expected attendee list. Yes, the government relations/lobbying side of higher education is represented, as it should be. But if the reforms proposed by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education are to be effectively implemented (and implemented in a timeframe that may affect those students today in high school, or junior high school) there should be some full-time, proven-effective communicators around the table (or at least in the seats behind the table).
There are some great minds that will be sitting around the table with Secretary Spellings. Individuals who have successfully taken on reform initiatives and have made a lasting difference in the quality and impact of their institutions or organizations. And each and every one of them can tell you that effective communications played an important role in that success.
Undoubtedly, many attendees will take the content of the summit back home with them, relaying it to their communications staffers and identifying ways to do what they can to move recommendations and reforms forward. But successful communications requires giving PR a seat at the table, not a summary after the fact.
I assume my invite to the summit was also lost in the mail, but here are my reccs:
* Focus on the ultimate impact — Who are these reforms designed to help? How will they see that help? When will they see it? How can we put a face on higher education reform? Discussion must move beyond structural and procedural changes and focus on the impact it will have on our communities.
* Define “what’s in it for me” — IHE presidents will be seen as true leaders. The business community will gain the pipeline of qualified workers they seek. Community leaders will have community members coming back to improve their neighborhoods. Parents will see their children do better than they have. Students will achieve their dreams. Every stakeholder in the process has a role. We’ll ask all to do something different. Let’s demonstrate the result of that change in behavior. If we want stakeholders to help implement change, we need to show the benefits to them and their core constituency
* There is no “one size fits all” — There is no simple way to trigger reform across all corners of higher education. While our ultimate goal may be singular, each audience needs to hear it a different way and be asked to do a specific thing. Don’t try to speak in a universal voice. Speak to administrators as administrators. Faculty as faculty. Students as students. Business as business. It demonstrates respect and understanding for the audience, and gets us to the goal faster.
* Build a big tent — Today’s faculty grumbling should tell us something. Not only do we need to define roles, we need to build an effort that offers everyone an opportunity to participate in reform. Many audiences may choose not to join in. They may oppose the recommendations, lack support among their own constituencies, or just not want to commit the time and effort to the cause. Give them access to the party now, and it is harder for them to oppose the end result later.
The cause is noble. The recommendations are actionable. The major players are at the table. Now is the time to unleash the communications dogs and let them soften the ground for meaningful higher ed reform.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 