technology

From the Eduflack Bookshelf

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, technology

For someone who writes so much about reading, I don’t seem to do enough of it.  Chalk it up to a consulting business busting at the seams, two toddlers at home, and a personal choice of writing over reading.  For my birthday, the edu-wife gave me the Kindle II, bringing together my loves of technology and books.  And I have excitedly downloaded a number of tomes on my new handheld (unfortunately, most of them are business related).

So before I head off on my latest business trip, I wanted to clear off the ole Eduflack bookshelf and reflect a little on three books (two new) that are worth a close read as we continue our discussions, debates, and activities on education improvement.
The first is Jay Mathews’ Work Hard.  Be Nice.If you haven’t heard of this book yet, you must be living under a rock.  This is Mathews’ telling of the creation of the Knowledge is Power Program, or KIPP.  This is a must-read, particularly in this day and age.  Anyone who doubts the value of well-run charter schools has to read this book.  Anyone who doubts the role hard work (both of teacher and student) can have on achievement has to read this book.  And anyone who thinks that some kids just aren’t cut out for success has to read this book.  Whether you believe in the KIPP model or not, whether you trust the data on KIPP or not, you have to appreciate the passion and belief structure that goes into the schools and is so clearly articulated in Work Hard.  As for Eduflack, I’ve got the work hard part down pretty well.  Be nice has always been a challenge.
Second off the shelf is Chalkbored: What’s Wrong with School & How to Fix It.  I’ll admit it, I was simply intrigued by the title.  Jeremy Schneider does a great job at laying out the problems, or perceived problems, facing our public schools.  More importantly, Schneider focuses on two key issues to move us from obstacle to opportunity.  The first is that we all must take responsibility for change.  it isn’t just up to the teacher or the principal to improve the learning process.  There is a role for all involved in the development of the child.  The second is that technology is a key component to meaningful solutions.  This is particularly important in today’s economic age, as we ask our schools to do more and more with less and less.  Chalkbored begins to even lay the groundwork for the impact open educational resources (or OER) can have on the school improvement movement.
My final read may surprise some folks.  Eduflack has been spending a great deal of time focusing on educational equity and access issues.  So a friend passed along a great title to help inspire me and guide some of my thinking.  Black Genius: African American Solutions to African American Problems is a collection of essays from some great leaders in the African-American community.  Edited by Eduflack fave Walter Mosley, Black Genius provides a range of intriguing thoughts on a range of topics such as effective communications, the media, and democracy.  The book is both thought-provoking and inspiring, and again reminds us that improvement requires the work of all.  We can’t blame anyone for our problems, nor can we expect others to help if we won’t step up ourselves.
Each of these books deserves a post on their own merits.  Collectively, they help provide a better understanding of the lens through which Eduflack views our education improvement activities, how we can truly improve, and who and how needs to be involved if we are to make such changes stick and have a real difference.

A Hand in the ARRA Till?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, NCLB, stimulus, technology

By now, we have all heard (many of us dozens of times) about the intent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, particularly as it relates to public education.  The goal of the economic stimulus bill was to make our schools whole, financially.  For those districts that were forced to cut budgets, eliminate programs, or delay the adoption of new textbooks or technology over the past two years, their woes are now supposed to be over.  Federal money (and I’m talking the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars) was intended to make up for those cuts.  School budget levels are to be restored to the highest of the past two years courtesy of the red-white-and-blue taxpayers.

That’s what is written in the law.  And that’s why the money is to go directly to the school districts.  The states serve merely as a pass-through for the dollars, a distribution checkpoint through which the feds can more effectively disseminate the dollars.  Money is not intended to go to state programs, nor are the states supposed to add any strings as to how it is funded.  SFSF is a lifeline to the school districts, and is designed to make up for their shortfalls (usually the result of previous state budget cuts).  Additional dollars, such as Title I, IDEA, and such also flow back directly into the districts, so we are supplementing and improving instruction on the ground, impacting the students we are trying to improve, rather than funding additional process and bureaucracy.
But something seems to have gotten lost along the way.  The Washington Post has a great story this AM about how the states are essentially looking to skim off the top of the SFSF, complete with a Mafia-laced quote about stimulus money “falling off the truck.”  The thinking here is relatively simple.  Yes, states are providing the LEAs the SFSF and related school improvement money as dictated under the stimulus bill.  But some are only doing so after schools give back some dollars to the county or to the state.  After all, while should the school district remain flush while other government agencies are suffering?  Why should the county pay its fair share into the schools (one of its primary obligations and the reason, in Virginia for instance, it collects property taxes) when the feds are issuing a blank check?
(As an aside, I must just say that WaPo has really raised its game when it comes to education policy reporting.  In recent months, the WaPo team has done some great work when it comes to capturing the world view and the local impact of ed policy, looking at key issues through both its federal/national lens and its local one.  And it only gets better when the WaPo editorial board and many of its columnists — I mean you Colby King — are covering these issues with great thought and regularity.)
Eduflack hopes that the examples laid out in WaPo this morning are exceptions to the rule, and not what we see happening around the country.  But I am enough of  a realist to know that this could very well become standard operating procedure.  Everybody wants a piece of the largest spending bill in town.  Everyone is hurting from the economic downturn.  So it shouldn’t surprise us that everyone wants a “taste” of what is intended for the school districts and for our students.
But officials who are acting on those wants should be ashamed of themselves.  Already, we are hearing stories of state legislatures that are looking to make deep, specific cuts to education spending because they know that the stimulus will make up the difference.  Already, we are hearing about states that are looking for “waivers” as to how they can spend their stimulus money, so they can redirect it to their preferred targets, rather than the students it was intended for.  And already we are now listening to tales of counties and localities looking to skim a little off the top so they can get a taste.  Reprehensible.
Education stimulus dollars are intended for education.  If we have heard anything that EdSec Arne Duncan has said or read anything ED has released in the guidance or related documents, it is that this is a one-time influx of cash.  Why is that important?  If a school district, county, or state makes a cut in anticipation of the ARRA money, they need to make up that cut next year or the following.  ARRA is not an open spigot of continuously flowing education dollars.  It is a one-time, stopgap funding act.  It is not intended to cover teacher salaries or offset core operating expenses or generally pay for the long-term operating expenses of a school district.  It is designed to fill the unexpected and unintended cuts our schools have faced in the past two years because of the economy, under the assumption that the localities and states will restore that funding soon, once the economy stabilizes and the state budget is in better shape.
That’s why so many are resistant to using ARRA to pay for teacher salaries and other such long-term obligations.  Once we get on that train, it is hard to get off and start walking on our own.  Stimulus money for teacher salaries becomes a long-term engagement, not a quick injection of funds.
At the end of the day, these stimulus dollars are intended to make sure that schools are spending on what they need in order to continue the learning process and move the needle on student achievement.  It is meant to end the logjam and the worry that has forced a district to delay a textbook adoption.  It is meant to loosen the pursestrings so that those hardware and software purchases that have been planned for years can be completed.  It is meant to place those supplemental learning materials in our low-performing classrooms, using this economic injection to provide an academic booster shot to students in need.
One of the greatest fears in town is that the stimulus money is not going to end up where it is intended.  That we are investing billions upon billions of dollars in our public schools, but won’t have anything to show for it.  That dollars are going to be thrown after process, rather than outcome.  That we will be investing in operations, rather than results.  Articles like these add fuel to that fire, and demonstrate the real need for strict federal oversight on how these funds are spent.  Simply offering technical assistance isn’t enough.  Perhaps it is time to revisit those intended NCLB SWAT teams, who will descend on school districts and make sure the money is spent as intended.  Those that do, continue to move forward.  Those that don’t, lose their dollars.  And those states or counties who try to undermine or circumvent the process face repercussions.
Education Trust has launched its Education Watch 2009 to keep a close eye on how the states are spending their money. (UPDATE: They are doing so by focusing on the results and outcomes.)  Perhaps we need similar watchdogs to oversee the LEAs, ensuring that money is spent as designated and that the layers of government that will touch ARRA will not be skimming dollars off the top before it reaches our students.
I recognize that ARRA represents an obscene amount of money when it comes to public school improvement.  I also know that, before the stimulus dollars, the feds were paying less than eight cents on every education dollar going into our public schools.  That means the vast majority of obligation for our schools rests with the states and localities.  That means the vast cost of our schools rests with the states and localities.  And that means the responsibility for results in our schools rests with states and localities.  The feds can provide ongoing booster shots of money and innovative grant pro
grams and a host of new ideas, but the heavy lifting, the real execution, and the improved results come from the states, localities, and schools themselves.  No matter whose name may be printed on the money or whose signatures may be on those initial checks. 

STEM, CCs, and Opportunity

Eduflack 21CS, early college, High School, higher ed, STEM, stimulus, technology, Workforce

The power of STEM, science-tech-engineering-math, instruction is virtually limitless.  In our 21st century workforce, we know that all employees need both a common knowledgebase and key skills.  What may have sufficed a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, just does not cut it these days.  If one is to contribute to the economy, one needs an understanding of technology and abilities in critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving.  Virtually every new job being created these days requires some form of postsecondary education, those career certificate programs or college degrees that ensure successful students are proficient in core subjects such as math and science.  If one is looking for the entrance to a successful and productive career, these days it is starting with that STEM entrance sign.

Unfortunately, there are often a lot of misperceptions about STEM and its intended audience.  We first think that STEM is only for those seeking to be rocket scientists and brain surgeons.  Untrue.  Good STEM programs are for every student, as all learners benefit from being STEM literate.  We think that STEM is a high school issue.  Untrue.  There are some really successful K-8 STEM efforts (just look at some of the work being done in states like Minnesota).  There are some incredibly successful STEM efforts being undertaken at our institutions of higher education, both for those seeking careers in the STEM fields and those just looking for a leg up in their own individual pursuits.
Perhaps one of the greatest STEM urban legends is the notion that STEM skills and STEM literacy are only concerns for our current students.  As evidenced by today’s USA Today article on laid-off workers heading back to school, nothing could be further from the truth.  Those who have been adversely affected by the economy (which at this point is just about everyone) are now looking to retool and reskill, pursuing new educational opportunities so they can get into new career fields with current job opportunities and significant long-term potential.
Historically, we see this sort of behavior during many of our nation’s economic downturns.  The economy goes south, unemployment rates edge up, and more and more people turn to IHEs — usually our community colleges — to fill the gaps and improve their chances of success.  Sometimes it means acquiring some new skills to complement existing degrees, certificates, and work experience.  Sometimes it means a complete change, with former airline mechanics becoming nurses or bricklayers becoming graphic designers.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, our nation’s giant piggybank for economic stimulus, $1.7 billion is available for adult employment services and training programs.  As USA Today reports, recently displaced workers are looking to tap this aid to take advantage of community college and vocational programs to give them the 21st century skills necessary to secure and succeed in 21st century jobs.
To some, investment in these sorts of vocational education programs is like throwing money down a black hole.  Once and future workers pursue certificates and degrees in a wide range of topics and interests, with little regard for local community economic needs or a true understanding of the employment landscape over the next decade.  We use such funds to pursue personal interests and passions, rather than to truly retool and gain the skills necessary to take a step forward and add a layer of knowledgebase and security to their future.
is it an unfair assumption?  Absolutely.  Over the past few decades our community colleges have done yeoman’s work in providing the sort of retraining programs our workforce needed to remain skilled, knowledgeable, and effective.  As the technology changed, the CCs were there to offer courses in everything from basic computing to complex machinery and technologies.  Some of our best environmental programs are found in CCs.  And we could keep going.
So what does this mean for us now, in 2009?  Put simply, our community colleges are the front lines for effective STEM education.  Those heading back to school are looking for practical skills that will get them back into the workforce and back into jobs with a future.  STEM is the answer.  Those heading back to community colleges are looking for skills that are attractive to employers and needed by their local industries.  STEM is the answer.  And those looking to reskill and retool want to invest their time in courses and programs that represent future opportunities, not the lessons of the past.  STEM is the answer.  As we look at community colleges’ role in the P-20 education continuum, particularly as it related to those re-entering the education gateway, STEM is the answer.
Moving forward, it is essential that we effectively link STEM education, our community colleges, and the students and potential students they are seeking to serve.  How do we do it?  First, we need to strengthen linkages between K-12 and higher education, allowing more current students to see the value and impact of a community college education.  The CCs are not simply for remedial postsecondary courses or as cheaper gateways to a four-year institution.  They offer their own value and their own impact.  These linkages are already being established across the nation, as high schools and community colleges are working together on early colleges and other dual-degree programs, allowing more young people to see the strength, value, and opportunity found on their local community college campuses.  And these linkages often focus on STEM-focused courses.
Second, we need to better link our community colleges with local industry.  We need to do the gap analyses to understand the current employment pipeline and where we may be lacking in skilled employees to fill those new jobs.  What can community college do to help prepare future workers for those future jobs?  We need to better understand our assets.  What programs do our CCs currently offer?  How do they align with employer needs?  How do we build the linkages between the two?  How do we build partnerships so employers use their local CCs for worker training programs, retraining efforts, and as impactful pipelines of skilled future employers?
Most importantly, though, we must continue to strengthen the STEM offerings in our institutions of higher education.  There is simply no getting around it.  STEM literacy is an essential component to gainful employment in the 21st century.  Today’s — and tomorrow’s — workers must think differently, work smartly, and adapt to the ever-changing environment around them.  That requires a core understanding of the math, science, and technology that does into even the most unlikely of STEM jobs.  That requires the 21CS that often accompany an effective STEM education.  Even those looking to work alongside their fathers and grandfathers on the assembly line or at the construction site require a STEM literacy that was never required of generations past.  A union card is no longer enough for some jobs.  STEM proficiency needs to accompany that union bug if our workers are going to compete, innovate, and outperform industry competitors around the globe.
Kudos to those who have already recognized that, those employees or the recently laid off who are already turning to schools and vocational programs to better equip them for the opportunities of the future.  Kudos to community colleges and other IHEs who are meeting the challenge and providing relevant, effective programs that align with industry needs and expectations.  And kudos to those who see that STEM is at the heart of the future of both.
Eduflack doesn’t seek to evangelize for S
TEM (at least not all of the time), but sometimes we need to sing loudly from the STEM hymnal.  Today’s students need STEM as part of their educational pathway, providing the knowledge and skills they need both in school and in career.  Today’s employees need STEM to stay relevant and adaptable to a changing economy.  And today’s employers need STEM to ensure they current and future workforce possess the skills to contribute to a thriving, growth-focused economy.  STEM education is at the heart of all of it.  We just need to ensure that community colleges and industry keep the blood pumping.
   

Gaming Civics Class

Eduflack 21CS, Online Education, Students, technology

When Eduflack talks about 21st century skills, I usually focus on a very basic concept.  At the heart and soul of the 21CS movement is using new media to teach core subjects.  How do we ensure that students remain plugged in while in the classroom?  How do we tap into student interests (particularly as they relate to technology) to ensure they are getting the reading, math, and social science skills required of an effective K-12 education?  How do we keep the tried-and-true, core subjects fresh through new approaches, new formats, and new information distribution channels?

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor seems to have one answer for our classrooms.  The Associated Press reports that the first woman to serve on the High Court has helped develop a series of video games designed to engage students on the core elements of civics and social studies.  With games such as “Do I Have a Right” and “Supreme Decision,” the jurist is promoting these technology-based lessons and intended for the classroom and developed for middle schoolers.  Largely private funded, the effort is also backed by Georgetown University and Arizona State University.  The best part?  The games are free.
O’Connor is the first to admit she isn’t the most tech-savvy of our current educational entrepreneurs.  According to the AP, she’s not on Facebook, she doesn’t Tweet, and she doesn’t event text much.  But she recognizes that our children’s social studies skills are lacking.  She knows our students understanding of civics, social studies, and history are not at acceptable levels.  So she is helping bring the content to the student.  If that means teaching constitutional rights through a video game platform, then so be it.
That, quite frankly, is what 21CS are all about.  O’Connor and her colleagues are applying a new teaching and learning medium to teach core materials to students in need.  By tying student interests and student skills with fundamental instructional lessons, O’Connor is offering just the sort of new thinking our classrooms need to improve student proficiency.  it doesn’t take a unanimous decision from the High Court to see the value of this idea.
  

Counting on Technology?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Online Education, stimulus, technology

It seems like we have talked about technology in the classroom since the dawn of time.  We’ve waded our way through the era of one-to-one computing, down the path of virtual K-12 education, and now into the stream of 21st century skills.  We have focused on ensuring kids had access to computers in the classroom, in the community, and at home.  We’ve watched as the cost of technology plummeted, school district access to bandwidth dramatically increased, and students gained a tech savviness that one never quite expected.  But these seem to be spurts of discussion, not the sort of sustained dialogue that lead real change and real improvement.

Earlier this year, the economic stimulus package focused, in part, on delivering hundreds of millions of dollars for technology investments in our K-12 classrooms and for data systems for those who are keeping watch over our kids.  So with all of the money spent, all of the programs launched, and all of the technology talk, what do we actually know?  How is our continuing investment in technology affecting student learning, student achievement, and student opportunity?
Sadly, we aren’t close to having the answers to such essential questions.  But we are getting closer.  As a nation, we are now taking a closer look of our schools’ technology capacity, use, and effective integration.  And this week we have two interesting data sets to help move the discussion forward.
First up is Education Week’s Technology Counts.  To be expected, the good folks at EdWeek offer a close look at how our states stack up with regard to capacity and use of educational technology.  This year’s report card looks at four key issues: state standards for students include technology, state tests students on technology, state has established a virtual school, and state offers computer-based assessments.  How do our states do?
On the whole, we are scoring a B when it comes to technology use.  We’re weakest when it comes to state tests students on technology, with only 13 states making the grade.  We’re strongest when it comes to state standards, with 50 states hitting the mark (only DC failed to earn the checkmark in that column).
What’s disturbing, though, is the list of states that seem to be struggling when it comes to integrating technology into their instruction and assessment.  The laggards on EdWeek’s list include California, New York, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.  Based on their economies, Eduflack would have expected better.  These are bellweather states that we look to as leaders.  They are homes to some of our largest urban districts, those communities we specifically reference when we talk about the need to innovate and close the achievement gap.
It is even more startling when you see those states that scored perfect As, states like Louisiana and West Virginia that few would put at the top of any educational leaders list.  but to their credit, these states are doing the right things and taking the right steps to better use technology.
While EdWeek looks at how our states and school districts are (or aren’t) using technology, Project Tomorrow released its annual Speak Up data on students and their use of technology.  Project Tomorrow seems to paint a far less optimistic picture.  Our schools may be providing capacity, but are students seeing its effective application?  Only 39 percent of high schools surveyed said they were doing a good job preparing students for the future, with only 32 percent of parents sharing that view.  And one-third of students say the inability to use their own technology — laptops, cell phones, MP3 players — at school is hampering their learning process.  
Think about that for a second.  One in three students sees the problem in being unplugged when they pass through the schoolhouse doors.  One-third of students feeling they are being deskilled in school, with classroom technology offerings not coming close to the gadgets and devices they are using at home, on the school bus, and in virtually any other non-educational setting.
So what do we make of the best-of-times/worst-of-times data offered by EdWeek and Project Tomorrow?  For Eduflack, there are a few key conclusions:
* We are doing a better job of integrating technology in the learning process, as evidenced by the EdWeek numbers.  But we still have a long way to go.  With 40 percent or more of states failing to make the grade on three of the four Technology Counts categories, there are miles to go before we should be satisfied.
* As we pump hundreds of millions of dollars into new ed tech, we still are struggling to identify best practices.  Only nine states truly make the EdWeek grade.  But do they offer up models that the laggards can follow?
* Our students are more tuned in to the learning and application gaps than we realize.  They know they are being shortchanged when they are asked to check personal technology at the classroom door.  And now their parents are even recognizing that tuning out may cost their kids in the long run.
* Ed tech is still not getting the attention or focus it deserves.  The Project Tomorrow announcement has gotten zero press coverage to date.  Technology Counts has not gotten the recognition it deserves.  And there seems to be little pressing demand for the details on how ARRA spending on education technology will be directed.
But it isn’t all bad.  The growth of virtual schools is an interesting surprise.  Twenty nine states are now offering virtual education.  Florida is mandating it in every one of their school districts.  Alabama is requiring virtual education for graduation.  The fact that so many states — including many that would be described as status quoers in public education — recognize that virtual education can supplement the learning and achievement process is a positive development to say the least.
As is typical, I want to know more.  I want to know how online social networks are being used to support student learning.  I want to know how technology is being used to develop and deliver meaningful professional development for teachers, breaking down geographic barriers so educators can share best practice.  I want to know how we integrate technology in the classroom to technology in testing to technology in data collection and interpretation.  I want to know not only how we keep from deskilling our students, but how do we keep from deskilling our new teachers who were brought up on the same technologies and learning platforms are students seem to hunger for.  And I want to know how we dispel, once and for all, the silly beliefs that low-income and minority students don’t have access to such technologies.
The true measure of all of this, though, is what we do with the information we have.  What will middle-of-the-pack or laggard states do to catch up to West Virginia, South Carolina, and Arizona when it comes to education technology?  How do we ensure that technology is integrated into the core curriculum, used to provide new learning opportunities and new skills in traditional subjects like history, science, and foreign languages?  How do we use technology to better assess student ability and better identify and deliver the interventions students need to improve?  How do we build useful data systems?  How do we use technology to keep kids engaged and interested in what is happening in the classroom?  How do we use ed tech to up-skill our students, and not de-skill them?  How do we help schools, parents, and students feel that they are gaining the tech skills necessary to succeed a
fter the school years are completed?  
And from a practical perspective, how do we ensure that technology and its proper acquisition and application is included as part of any Race to the Top grant or school improvement and innovation effort?  How do we take what we know to improve, rather than just maintain?
A lot of questions, I’ll grant you.  But all necessary.  This week’s data helps guide the inquiry process.  But it can’t be a once-a-year discussion any more.  Effective use of technology in the classroom needs to be a daily point of discussion with policymakers, administrators, educators, and families.  If we expect to boost student achievement, close the achievement gap, and compete on those international benchmarks, it is a non-negotiable.  Technology allows us to innovate, do things differently, and engage students on core subjects in new and exciting ways.  if the name of the game is improvement through innovation, how can we neglect the role of technology in any solution?

Jumping Into the Higher Ed News Debate

Eduflack higher ed, PR, technology

In my post this AM on communicating in a new education paradigm, I laid out the belief that the launch of Inside Higher Education was a real game changer for education, particularly higher education, reporting.  Why?  It captured news from campuses across the nation.  It spotlighted local higher ed coverage.  It delivered them to a wide range of email inboxes across the nation.  And it did so for free.

This was not intended as a slam on the Chronicle of Higher Education.  I have college friends who have written or currently write for the Chronicle.  It is one of the top print publications in the industry, one that I grew up reading (and you wondered how exciting the life of a son of a college president is).  Its unique web visitors and print readership should be envied by most publications.  I’ll applaud the Chronicle for being one of the first newspapers to have a daily web presence (they cite 1995.  For the record, I helped get The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s independent student newspaper, online five days a week in 1994).  And I’ll credit them for their daily email news briefing, Academe Today, for delivering the top news the Chronicle’s primary readership look for.
What catches me, though, are the restrictions on its website.  We’ve gotten spoiled in today’s 24-7 information environment.  We want it all, and we don’t want to pay for it.  When I visit a website, I expect to get all of the information that I can access.  I’m prepared to offer up my email address and vitals for access, as that is the price of doing business.  Yes, the Chronicle offers free access to some information on its site, namely its blog postings.  But the simple fact remains that the average reader cannot access the majority of headlines posted on the Chronicle website without a paid subscription.  When i look at the top stories on the home page (today, for instance, I know foreign graduates are losing job offers because of the stimulus package, but I don’t know how or why), I look so longingly, knowing that a click will only get me the lede paragraph, and the rest of the story is denied me without a Chronicle account and a paid subscription (or an online pass).  Even after all these years, the Chronicle is a bit of an online tease, at least for those who aren’t willing to pay to play.
I don’t fault the Chronicle for its business model.  It has found a market that is willing to pay for its content, clearly recognizing that the information available is worth the price.  In fact, there are colleges and universities that are willing to buy the licenses to provide full access to content to each and every person on their campuses.  And I’m particularly fond of the Chronicle’s old print ads showing those college presidents clipping and dog earing articles from a publication that is seen as a “bible” in their industry.  It is a high-quality pub with a loyal readership.
But it is still catching up to the times.  If I go to the homepage of the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal — industry leaders all — I expect to gain access to the latest articles promoted on their homepage.  Those that have tried to charge for content have had to reverse course.  No, I don’t expect full access to the archives and may even be willing to pay for content if I believe it to be valuable.  But I want access to more than the first paragraph of the latest news.  And I’m not the only one.
No, Inside Higher Ed didn’t change higher education journalism.  But it did change the way we viewed higher education journalism (as I noted this morning).  It opened such information up to the masses (or at least those interested in such topics).  It raised the profile of higher education issues beyond those in academe.  And, in the end, it has made the Chronicle a better publication, as it has broadened its reach, expanded its options, and improved its quality.  It’s a win-win, particularly for those who are paid subscribers to the Chronicle.  

Communicating in a New Education Paradigm

Eduflack Marketing, PR, technology

It wasn’t that long ago that professionals in the education space thought communications efforts were fairly easy.  Talk with the education reporters at some of the big dailies.  Engage a little with NPR.  Sit down with Education Week and Education Daily.  Maybe a quick call over to the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Get someone to publish an oped or commentary.  Then the job was done.  Success was a piece in a daily like USA Today, WSJ, or New York Times, with support coverage coming from EdWeek or a specialized trade (like e-School News).

How times have changed.  This shift can probably be traced back to 2004, when InsideHigherEd was launched.  InsideHigherEd changed the way we viewed higher education journalism.  No longer did we wait for that cellophane wrapped tabloid known as the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Instead, we got daily news updates on what was happening on our college campuses.  And we got those updates delivered directly to our email inboxes, with many even unaware of the website that hosted them.
As we gained greater interest in what was happening in states and school districts across the nation, we saw the value of local news on local education issues.  Education News was one of the first to take advantage of the shift, providing us with education headlines from across the country and around the world, usually delivered to our email box before we even got the morning paper from our driveways.  EdNews information is now supplemented by similar distributions such as ECS’ mid-day headlines and ASCD’s afternoon briefing.  And then there are specialized newsletters like the daily Fritzwire to update us on the latest in events, reports, and happenings about time.
Looking at the landscape today, we see the evolution continues.  We are relying more heavily on blogs — both professional and amateur — for information.  Information from Education Week, for example, is far more useful coming from its portfolio of content-based blogs that are updated daily than it is waiting for Wednesday’s print newspaper.  The introduction of online journalism such as Gotham Schools demonstrates the power professional reporters can have operating in a new medium, even if it is by necessity, and not choice.  And let’s not even talk about the contributions — the good, the bad, and the ugly — that us amateur bloggers are making to the public discourse. 
All of this forces us to look at how we effectively disseminate information, particularly as we focus on topics of education improvement.  We know several statements to be true.  It is harder than ever to break through public education’s white noise and have your message heard.  A one-time media hit in a daily newspaper no longer wins the day; stories with meaning need legs, meaning they need multiple hits in multiple media.  The traditional print media is dramatically scaling back its coverage of education issues, with many former “education beats” being absorbed by general assignment or metro reporters.  Put simply, the old-school clip packets that defined success a decade ago no longer cut it and are no longer a measure of effectiveness.  We need to integrate efforts, explore new media, and take advantage of unfiltered communication vehicles for our message to take hold and for our issues to take hold.
So what does it all mean?
* We need to establish lasting relationships with reporters.  Monthly press release dumps no longer get the job done.  If we want to effectively engage the media, we must understand the issues that are important to them, follow what they are covering, and see how our issues fit in with their priorities.  We must also be conduits for information, making the media’s job easier even if it doesn’t mean specific news coverage for us at that moment.
* Our websites must be used as more than glorified filing cabinets.  Websites should not be a dumping ground for all information related to our organization or our issue.  They must be an extension of the organizational brand, providing a clear roadmap on the important issues, the facts and figures behind those issues, and what the organization is doing to move the ball forward.  And at the end of the day, such sites are to give us just enough information to ask more questions and seek more answers.
* We must use blogs as tools to build discussion and ask questions.  In their earlier iterations, blogs were used as promotional billboards for organizations and companies, nothing more than promoting the latest press release.  Those times are over.  Blogs must have fresh content (meaning updates several times a week) and they must be contributing to the public discourse.  They are a tool to give an organization a real voice, an ability to distinguish themselves from the others on the horizon, an opportunity to demonstrate innovation and fresh thinking in an era of status quo and same old-same old.  They must also welcome discussion and dissent.
* We should use online communities and social networking to expand our reach and deliver resources to members and other interesting parties.  By now, we all know Facebook and the power of its reach.  Groups such as SREB and Hechinger Institute and others have done a strong job tapping the power of Facebook to broaden their message and amplify their reach.  What constantly amazes Eduflack, though, are those organizations seeking to build their own proprietary social networks.  Why invest the time and resources into building a new mousetrap when Facebook, LinkedIn, or Google Groups already offers you a superior product that gets the job done?  With so many venues for information, it is far more effective to master a delivery system that millions are already using (like Facebook) than to try to build something new and force individuals to juggle multiple platforms for multiple purposes.  
* We need to embrace the new.  A year ago (heck, six months ago) Twitter was a new vocabulary word for virtually every education organization.  Now, groups like ASCD, ABCTE, and CER have mastered the art of the Tweet, using microblogging to build networks, share new data, and build excitement for progress and movement.  Tweets can become an enormously powerful tool to direct individuals to the latest news, research, and developments coming from your organization.  Used correctly, it can be the perfect compliment to ongoing web and blog developments.  
For a long time, Eduflack has preached that effective education improvement is a multi-step process.  The culmination of this process is the changing of public thinking and public behavior.  That begins, though, by informing.  Simply put, we need to continue to adapt the way we are informing audiences of our work, our contributions, and what we are doing to innovate.  That means communicating to multiple audiences, with multiple messages, through multiple mediums.  It means recognizing there is no one-size-fits-all approach nor is there a single silver bullet that will get the job done.  We need integrated communications efforts that embrace both old and new media.  We need to work through filtered sources such as daily newspapers and supplement it with unfiltered sources such as blogs and Twitter.  We need to realize relationships — with reporters, bloggers, and influencers — can be just as important as the information itself.  And we need to embrace the believe that a steady stream of ongoing information is the only way to effectively inform.  A dozen slivers of effectively delivered information will beat out the perfect press release each and every time.
Most importantly, though, we need to view our communications tools as dialogue and engagement builders.  Dissemination no longer wins the day.
 We can’t simply shoot out a press release and assume that it will be read and it will be acted on.  We must continually provide fresh content on the issues important to us, demonstrating relevance to the larger discussion and real impact on real people.  We must use our communications to demonstrate our unique value proposition, our unique contributions, and how we fit into the solutions-driven world we now live in.  We must show how we are making a difference, and not merely contributing to the white noise or shoring up the walls of the status quo.
Yes, we must be careful to distinguish between what is useful and what is merely trendy.  Those education institutions that invested so heavily in Second Life two or three years ago are probably ruing that decision these days.  But innovations in our educational infrastructure require innovations in how we communicate and how we engage.  Those that are unaware of the options before them or those that are afraid of what is new or different are those that will be left behind.  
It is a new era for public education and public education reform.  Those groups that want to be part of the solution (even if that just means a part of federal funding) must demonstrate their relevance and their impact.  And they only have one chance to get it right.  Knowing what to say is often the easy part.  Effectively delivering it can be far more challenging.  Success, at least as we define it in 2009, requires an integrated approach that calls for ongoing communications and multiple touches through multiple mediums.  Those that figure it out and maximize their resources will be the leading voices in the coming years.  Those who rely on a communications model circa 1990 or even 2000 will be left behind.  It may be cruel truth, but it is the truth.  

Resources for School Districts Entering Cyberspace

Eduflack Marketing, PR, technology

Over the weekend at the ASCD Conference down in Orlando, Eduflack was asked to identify some examples of school districts or superintendents who were up on the blogosphere and doing a decent job at it.  Follow-up questions also included sources for information and other sites that were useful.  So following are just a few examples to give those educators some ideas:

Superintendents Blogs

School District Blogs (a few good examples of districts collecting and inventorying blogs across the schools)
Over in St. Johns School District in Florida, they were doing some interesting things with the blog and podcasts.  But the site has been dormant for a bit now.  And, ultimately, such sites are only as strong as the frequency of their materials.
A Few Others to Consider
School board members and trustees are also getting into the blogging act.  One of the best is Texas’ Mike Falick.  Fred Deutsch out in South Dakota was also doing a strong one, but it seems to have gone dormant.  
Some teachers have teamed up with their students to take full advantage of blog opportunities.  Check out Mr. Hancock’s class blog in British Columbia and Nebraska’s South Titan Government Blog.   
Another important aspect of the blogosphere to consider — how others are viewing your school district.  What’s the external view of what’s happening in the schools?  Two great examples of this.  For the NYC Department of Education and all things Joel Klein, you have a foil in Gotham Schools.  For Texas’ Dallas ISD, you have the Dallas Morning News’ Kent Fischer’s Dallas ISD Blog.  Both are written by professional journalists (for Gotham, it is a collection of such), and the quality and insight shows.
  
Twitter
School districts seem to be slow to enter the world of tweeting, if for no other reason than their primary audiences (teachers) are likely a little occupied during business hours to keep track of all of the tweets.  But we are seeing some education organizations putting Tweets to good use.  Some good Twitter examples are ASCD (ASCD and WholeChildAdv accounts), ABCTE (abcte), and ECS (BruceatECS).  Education Week has been particularly adept at sharing information on all of their latest blogs and new articles from their Tweet perch at educationweek.  And then there is Eduflack (eduflack).
For those looking for additional online resources, let me link you back to some previous discussions that were hosted over on the Educommunicators blog (http://blog.educommunicators.com):
Such lists are continually growing and evolving.  The policy blogs, for instance, do not include those blogs coming directly from teachers.  There is a whole industry of teacher-led blogs providing valuable and interesting information on classroom developments.  So if you have other suggestions of blogs, Tweets, and listserves that should be added to the collection, please let me know or shoot a comment to this post so we can continue to broaden the net.

Engagin’ at ASCD

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, PR, technology

This morning, Eduflack led a nearly full session at the ASCD 2009 Conference down in Orlando.  The topic?  It should be no surprise that I spoke on effective communications in education.  If the initial evaluations are any indication, the session seemed to be a hit.  There was a real hunger from participants to learn more about successful communications, particularly how educators (especially school districts) could use blogs, Twitter, and social networking to enhance their activities.

Our focus this AM was simple.  The need for effective message.  The need to clearly identify primary and secondary audiences.  Ensure the message aligns with those audiences.  And deliver the message multiple times through multiple channels (media, events, publications, Internet, etc.)
Those who know me know there is a simple theory at the heart of all of the communications activities I advocate for and engage in.  I do not believe that simply informing audiences of good ideas is enough.  I believe in public engagement, the research-based, roll-up-your sleeves Dan Yankelovich sort that moves us from informing audiences to building commitment for a solution to mobilizing those audiences to action.  Successful communication is about using information to change public thinking and public behavior.  That’s the only way we bring about real, lasting improvement.
I made the audience two promises, promises I will fulfill here on Eduflack.  The first is to provide a detailing telling of the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilization model, which follows and which friends and colleagues have heard far too many times coming out of my mouth.  The second is best examples of where to get information and who is doing blogs and such well.  The former follows, the latter will be provided Monday.
So without further ado, here is the idea paper I provided to scores of ASCD members this morning.  This think piece was written with the notion that, in today’s ARRA era, education improvement must be tied to economic impact:

 

Effectively integrating public education and its
impact on the economic opportunity into the culture requires an integrated
marketing and communications effort that embodies the most effective elements
of advocacy and social marketing. 
Success is defined by more than just educating key constituencies about
education efforts and their goals. 
True success requires stakeholders to take specific action – to
implement effective education efforts in partnership with educators and the
business community to directly improve education and job opportunities for all
students.  Such actions require us
to move from informing the public to
building commitment for a solution,
and, finally to mobilizing around
specific actions. 

 

There is a great difference between making
stakeholders aware of a concern like the need for more math or science education
to the more sophisticated level of informed public opinion necessary to reach
consensus and generate a sense of urgency that ultimately leads to the action
of adopting an education platform and integrating the educational and community
needs on such a platform.

 

The Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action
process can be broken down to understand the steps necessary to move through
this process.  Using a seven-stage
model developed by Daniel Yankelovich of the Public Agenda Foundation, we can
analyze the process of engaging a target audience and moving them from
uninformed bystander to an action-oriented group, a group ready to
enthusiastically adopt public education solutions.  These stages are:

·     
Becoming
aware of the issues

·     
Developing a
sense of urgency

·     
Looking for
answers

·     
Managing and
persevering through resistance

·     
Weighing
choices

·     
Intellectual
acceptance

·     
Full
acceptance

 

In applying these seven stages to our key
audiences, we must recognize that each stakeholder group may be at a different
point along this continuum. Understanding this is critical to designing and
implementing the appropriate tactics to move them to action.  Many a plan has failed because it was
based on the assumption that one size fits all audiences. 

 

INFORM: The
first two stages occur in the Informing phase.

 

Before we
can get audiences to adopt public education reforms and embrace the portfolio
of research and recommendations available to them, we must first make them
aware of the issues at hand. 

 

Quantitative
research, coupled with stakeholder reaction and interest in education,
demonstrates the concerns our audiences have for workforce preparedness and
opportunity.  This data is even
further enhanced by a number of respected business and education organizations.    All audiences are looking
for solutions – solutions that can both be easily implemented and have maximum
impact on improving educational and economic opportunity.

 

While
many decisionmakers recognize that there are problems in meeting the coming
workforce demands, many do not agree on what those problems may be or what
actions might successfully address them. 
And, unfortunately, too many people believe that there is nothing that
can be done to fix these problems. 
High school dropout rates and postsecondary education preparedness
issues only complicated the discussion. 
Those that are poised to become leaders in true education improvement must
first convince K-12 and postsecondary education leaders, current and potential
employers in the state, state and local policymakers, and the public at large
that there are solutions that will work, and solutions their communities can
get behind and support.

 

Stage One: People
Become Aware of an Issue

 

In general, the public recognizes that meaningful
employment in the 21st century requires a basic understanding of reading,
math, and a collection of “soft” skills, often referred to as 21st
century skills. Better-educated consumers are now placing greater scrutiny on
the relevance of secondary and postsecondary education on employment
opportunities.  At this first
stage, states should develop messages and materials with clear, concrete
examples spelling out the problems. 
We do not need to worry about promoting our solutions just yet.  Our goal for this stage should be to
steer the debate on the skills needed for 21st century jobs.  This can be done through media
relations, special events, and the successful use of advocates.

 

Stage Two: People
Develop a Sense of Urgency

 

When a problem has existed for a long period of
time, people stop seeing it as a problem and start seeing it as a
situation.  For years, the public
has been flooded by news coverage that there is little, if anything, they can
do to keep jobs in their community or to gain the skills needed to hold onto a
job.  Many see job loss or employer
departure as a fact of life.   
We need to instill a greater sense of innovation and optimism among
stakeholders.  This increased
pressure on decision-makers can encourage the adoption of new approaches and
programs, such as those highlighted in education improvement efforts. 

 

Leaders like ASCD provide stakeholders a proven
solution to the problems associated with rigorous, relevant education and
preparation for well-paying careers. 
With the research and support, most “reforms” are not yet another new
initiative looking to turn our schools into test tubes, using classrooms to
test virtually any available idea while leaving many mandates unfulfilled.  Ultimately, leaders need to transform
the general perception that our schools have not adapted for the 21st
century, and thus are unable to prepare students for the rigors of both
postsecondary education and meaningful careers.  This effort needs to replace such cynicism with hope.

 

We can create this sense of urgency by showing the
enormous need for solutions in the communities gaining the greatest
scrutiny.  By focusing on past
successes and proven-effective methods, we can demonstrate the critical role of
a strong education, helping make key decisionmaking constituencies understand
the serious risks they face not using proven, comprehensive practice to improve
educational and economic opportunities. 
The most effective strategy here is to explain the negative implications
of maintaining the status quo in the context of the concern about economic
vitality of the nation, particularly among the public, policymakers, and the
business community.

 

BUILD
COMMITMENT: The middle stages help build commitment.

 

Once
individuals believe in your interpretation of the problem, they are ready to
commit to your solutions. Transforming a general education mission into a
public call to arms will require all involved parties to demonstrate to a
variety of audiences, in dramatic and memorable ways, that these solutions are
the right ones to improve efficiency and success.

 

Stage Three: People
Look for Answers

 

Once people feel that an issue is urgent they
begin to demand solutions.  If we
have been successful in defining the issue in our terms, it will be easier for
us to state solutions convincingly. 
In this stage, people will demand action from policymakers and education
and business leaders.  This is a
good time to organize meetings to introduce specific actions that our audiences
can take to help us reach our goal. 

 

Stage Four: Manage
and Persevere through Resistance

 

Inevitably, some people will reject your
solutions.  This leads to the most
difficult stage of the process. 
Some audiences will be reluctant to face and accept the trade-offs that
come from choosing a specific plan of action and opponents will try to poke
holes in our ideas.  This
resistance may be heightened by the following factors:

 

Misunderstanding:  Some people will (intentionally or otherwise) misinterpret or
outright misconstrue your goals. 
They may question the purpose and motivations of both you and your
partners. 

 

Narrow
Thinking: Many
in our target audiences will miss the big picture and misunderstand the main
elements of the problem.  They may
determine that the problems in many communities are a symptom of the times, and
that employers may just improve themselves over time.  Here we need to expand stakeholders’ vision and demonstrate
that both the issue and the solution are not what they initially perceived.

 

Wishful
Thinking: Others
may fall into the clutches of those peddling miracle cures or silver bullets
aimed at solving an institution’s problems by simply adopting the next easy
quick fix, ignoring the research, strong partnerships, and impact on economic
development that must accompany such a change.  Here we need to inject a note of reality and point out the
logical consequences (and costs) of this line of reasoning.

 

Resistance
to Change: People
are sometimes eager to project the problem onto others. There will be some who
are content with the current state of K-12 education or the employment
situation, believing their local community is doing the best it can and does
not need change.  We can counter
this by pointing to overall benefits that come from relevant education, reduced
drop-out rates, an improved college-ready rate, and clearer paths to
employment.

 

The best way to avoid this resistance is to ensure
that everyone is involved in the process and that all of their concerns have
been heard.

 

Stage Five: People
Weigh Choices

 

After moving beyond initial resistance to tackling
the challenge of improving educational and economic opportunities in their
community, people will begin to weigh their choices rationally and look to a
variety of options for moving recommendations into practice.  At this stage, stakeholders should feel
that they have a range of choices and a reason to make them.  As leaders in this process – with a
special awareness of how decisions are made – we can clarify the pros and cons
of each decision and allow time and opportunity for deliberation. 

 

MOBILIZE
FOR ACTION: The final stages help mobilize our audiences for
action.

 

Changing
attitudes and informing the debate is not enough.  Just as a politician who has convinced 60 percent of the
public to support his/her issues, but who has not succeeded in convincing them
to go to the polls on Election Day, will lose the election, advocates for
improving school and school district management cannot accomplish their goals
unless supporters move from passive acquiescence to active engagement.  Public education succeeds when
policymakers and community leaders are actively supporting its solutions.  Once our target audiences are engaged
because they believe in the merits of our position, they will need to know what
we want them to do to help accomplish these goals.  So it is important that our communications and organizing
efforts include specific actions that supporters can take to help us reach our
goals.  In addition, we will also
need to make it easy and feasible for them to take these actions.

 

Stage Six: Intellectual
Acceptance

 

In this stage, many people will agree that
education improvement efforts are valid and will produce desired results, but
may not be willing to change their behavior or adopt recommendations.  We must recognize that this is a temporary
stage and that, with patience and continued effort, they will get there. It is
important not to expect too much, too soon.  The process of moving from awareness to action takes time. 

 

Stage Seven: Full
Acceptance

 

Given time, incentives, and opportunities to
consider their core values in light of challenges and needs, our audiences
should reach the final stage of full intellectual and emotional acceptance of
the importance of improving educational and economic opportunities.  Now is the best time to make sure that
there is a role for everyone to play in the effective adoption of education
solutions that directly impact educational and economic opportunities, giving
stakeholders the tools and information they need to persuasively move
themselves and others from awareness to action. 

 

Of course, different target audiences will reach
these stages at different times and go through them at different rates. We may
need to tailor the same event or materials to perform different functions
depending on where in these stages specific members of our audience stand. 

 

Education is an industry as driven by emotion as
it is by fact.  As a result, too
often, stakeholders decide that inaction is the best action, out of fear of
taking a wrong step or alienating a specific group.  For that reason, the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action
model is one of the most effective methods for leaders to educate key audiences
on the need for public education improvement and the long-term impact such
efforts have on strengthening the schools, the community, the economy, and the
nation as a whole.

 

Virtual School Cuts

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, charter schools, Online Education, technology

A great deal has been said (and written) lately about Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and his plans for charter schools in the Buckeye State.  As part of his state of the state address in January, Strickland embraced the notion of charter schools … as long as they were run by not-for-profits.  It was a bold stance, once that could be a precursor to future charter fights in the years to come.

Like most states, Ohio is faced with serious budget shortfalls.  Some may say the Ohio budget may be the most challenging, in terms of potential for massive cutbacks, save for California.  Even with support from the federal government under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Ohio is having to make tough decisions on its K-12 policy priorities.
Those decisions seem to be forcing Strickland to finetune his charter school philosophy even more.  Earlier this week, as part of the Governor’s budget, Ohio proposed that virtual charter schools suffer the same fate as their for-profit brethren — elimination.  The Governor proposed slashing 75 percent of funding for the state’s virtual charter schools, affecting 34 schools serving more than 23,000 students.
In previous budgets, Ohio’s virtual charter schools received approximately $5,400 per pupil for education.  The proposed budget drops that to $1,500 per pupil in aid.  The plan makes a clear distinction in aid formulas provided to brick-and-mortar schools and these virtual academies.  The full story, courtesy of the Columbus Dispatch’s Catherine Candisky, can be found here – www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/01/charter.ART_ART_03-01-09_B3_UDD2SLF.html?sid=101.  
Yes, virtual schools operate on less dollars than traditional, bricks-and-mortar schools.  Duh!  With no physical infrastructure to attend to, operating costs are indeed lower.  But these schools still need to invest in the technological infrastructure, curriculum, teacher salaries and benefits, educator PD, and student assessments, to name just a few.  There are real costs associated with virtual schools, particularly if educators are to ensure that students maximize the opportunities posed to them.
But it begs larger questions.  What are we getting, even for those reduced dollars?  Are virtual charter schools working in Ohio?  The Dispatch cites on K-12 virtual school that has regularly hit AYP numbers while earning a decent “continuous improvement” grade.  But that school is operating at a 35:1 student:teacher ratio, far above the 25:1 ration the proposed state formula expected.  What about the other 33 schools?
As we are seeing in Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and a host of other states, there is a real role for virtual education in the K-12 experience if it is done right, done effectively, and done with the purpose of improving access and opportunity for all students.  We also know that virtual education can be an incubator for bad practice, with those seeking to make a quick buck taking advantage of a state or school district’s desire to innovate.  One only has to look at higher education to see how a good, well-meaning idea can quickly be bastardized.
So as Ohio’s virtual charter schools are facing the virtual guillotine, we must look at their success boosting student achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Like Ohio’s Connections Academy, are all the Buckeye State’s virtual schools regularly making AYP?  If not, why not?  Is the quality of instruction (and the quality of the teacher) the same as in traditional schools?  Are they improving access for all students, particularly those in low-income and hard-to-serve communities, or are the attracting a select group of students who can receive a good education in virtually any circumstance?  Are we seeing longitudinal data on student achievement, or are students not staying in the virtual programs long enough to measure true year-on-year-on-year data?  Are the programs proven effective, and can we demonstrate it?
Virtual schools are an easy mark when it comes to education budget cutting.  Most taxpayers and policymakers are under the impression that such programs are the playgrounds of white families with some financial resources.  The urban legend goes most minority and low-income families simply don’t have the technology at home to effectively engage in online education, and they certainly don’t have the familial oversight to ensure that students, particularly those in the elementary and middle grades, are putting in the time and effort required of effective virtual education.  (Hogwash, of course, but many believe it.)  Layer on the notion that most virtual teachers are non-union, many providers are for-profit, and we just don’t trust the rigor of “computer game” education and you can see why virtual K-12 schools are an easy target during tough budget times.
Is there a role for virtual education in our K-12 infrastructure?  Absolutely.  Can new technologies level the playing field and provide learning opportunities some schools could never get?  Absolutely.  Can virtual ed boost student achievement, close the achievement gap, and meet AYP just as well as a bricks-and-mortar school?  When executed properly, absolutely.  But such programs remain a supplement to the traditional public education network.  As much as some may want them to supplant failing programs, that will never happen, at least not in our current education mindset.
We’re all for innovation, as long as we innovate within reason.  If virtual schools are going to be fully embraced as a key component of our K-12 patchwork, they must first do a better job communicating their strong academic foundations, benefits, quality, and results.  Until then, many will continue to see them as online playing when “real” students are hard at work.  And as long as that is the case, they will always face potential cuts and elimination from policymakers balancing a range of interests, especially when virtual K-12 is seen as a boutique industry (and a mostly for-profit one at that).