Workforce

Moving From One-Way PR to Two-Way Dialogue

Eduflack Gates Foundation, NGA, STEM, Workforce

How do we move from one-way communication to two-way dialogue?  And more importantly, do we need such dialogue if we are to make lasting education improvements?  Those are the questions that Eduflack asked this afternoon to attendees of the National Governors Association’s STEM Policy Academy here in Washington.

The NGA STEM Policy Academy is a fascinating gathering of stakeholders and influencers in statewide STEM policy.  A year and a half ago, NGA provided six states (Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) with two-year, Gates Foundation-funded grants to implement long-term STEM solutions in their communities.  This week, each state brought approximately 10 of their STEM leaders — representing the governors office, state departments of education, state departments of economic or workforce development, the business community, higher education, and K-12 — to share their lessons learned to date and help encourage and invigorate the states as they near their two-year reporting deadline.  (For more on NGA’s STEM efforts, check out www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.1f41d49be2d3d33eacdcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=b1da18bd4bae0110VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD)  
The energy among the group is fantastic, particularly since so many of them are focused on the long-term (think 10 years) versus just the two years in the grant.  Yes, folks are conducting sustainability discussions, even in this economy.
It was heartening that the NGA STEM states are asking the right communications questions.  How does the governor use the bully pulpit to advocate for STEM when he or she is equally passionate about pursuing additional education and workforce development issues?  What is the overarching message? Who do they need to communicate to?  Who does the communicating?  How much communication is needed to succeed?
As Eduflack has written here many times before, one of the great misperceptions about effective communications is that it is simply one-way public relations.  Send out a press release, issue a report, distribute a brochure, and declare mission accomplished.  In reality, the mission is just beginning.  Such one-way communications are simply tools for informing, ways to raise awareness of a specific issue.  The real communications effort comes after the informing phase, as we look to build networks to effectively engage the community and then to mobilize those networks to bring about real change.
For these STEM states, and countless other states seeking education improvements, effective communications becomes a game of multiples.  Multiple stakeholders reaching multiple audiences with multiple messages and multiple tactics achieving multiple objectives and reaching multiple goals.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution.  There is no silver bullet.  It requires real, ongoing, integrated work.
Why is this game of multiples so important?  For a number of reasons.
1) Education reforms no longer happen in vacuums.  There are multiple players involved in the process. For STEM to succeed, policymakers must join together with K-12 and higher education and the business community, among others.
2) Education improvement is rapidly becoming a state-level game.  Don’t let the increased federal investment in education, as reflected in the economic stimulus package, fool you.  Much of that money is being distributed through block grants.  It falls to the states (the governors and the state departments of education, in particular) to put those funds to good use.  That means collaboration at the state level, both in government and through public/private partnerships.
3) It also means collaboration at the local level.  The majority of NGA STEM states are pursuing regional networks to implement policy.  These regional networks are taking state goals and state objectives, and implementing them through the lens of local realities.  With STEM, in particular, how are we using changes at the K-12 and postsecondary levels to meet the specific needs of local employers?  That’s the million-dollar (or more) question.
4) Effective STEM communications requires simplifying the complex.  STEM is a complicated issue, culminating in the intersection of K-12, higher education, workforce development, and community engagement.  Despite popular belief, all students benefit from STEM education, not just the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons.  And STEM literacy has an effect on the economy, the justice system, healthcare, and the environment, to name just a few.  Taking all of that and putting it on a bumper sticker is no easy task.  We need to keep it simple if it is to touch the lives of all it can and should reach.
5) Successful communication requires multiple touches.  The brain is a funny thing.  We need to hear the same message seven or eight times before it registers in our memory banks.  That means hearing about the impact of STEM from our employer, our kids’ teacher, our church, our neighbors, and our volunteer groups.  it means hearing why it is important from the student, the teacher, and the workforce perspective.  And it means hearing it in person, in print, online, and through public events.  Once we are sick of hearing the STEM message, it means it is finally sinking in and success is within reach.
The STEM states are making real progress in developing the policies necessary to move STEM into the core of our education and our economy.  Minnesota’s STEM website, Colorado’s STEM-apolooza, and Pennsylvania’s upcoming podcasts are strong tactics to move us toward successful communication.  The challenge now is wrapping it all together with long-term strategic communications. 
STEM efforts, like other education improvements, are only true successes when others know what we’ve done, why we’ve done it, and the impact it has on the stakeholders involved.  We need to know our return on investment.  it may be a bit crass, but if we don’t effectively “sell” our education improvements, they will never achieve their full purpose nor will the maximize their true opportunities.
NGA has long made communications a non-negotiable as part of its grant programs.  Strategic communications should be a non-negotiable in any school improvement effort.  it’s the only way to share best practice and to build upon the promise of our forward progress.  The STEM states are learning that.  And there is likely much they can teach others in the long term.
  

Turning Economic Lemons Into STEM Lemonade

Eduflack High School, higher ed, PD, STEM, Workforce

Many were greatly surprised yesterday when Microsoft announced it was laying off 5,000 employees across the United States.  Microsoft is one of those companies that we have long viewed as invulnerable.  It was a company on a relatively upward trajectory from the start, weathering the dot-com bomb of 2000, the resurgence of Apple and the Mac, legal issues both home and in the European Union, and even trivial issues like the public rejection of its latest operating system.

So when layoffs were announced yesterday, it was a big statement.  Those who thought the economy had turned the corner and was ready for recovery are now reconsidering their optimism.  While the Microsoft downsizing is likely to have a lasting impact on the technology sector, it provides a real opportunity for public education.  Among those employees soon to depart the software giant are individuals expert in math, science, technology, and engineering, just the sort of content background and training our public schools — particularly our high schools — are in desperate need of.
For decades now, we have bemoaned the national shortage of qualified science and math teachers, particularly in our urban areas and in our secondary schools.  The current emphasis on 21st century skills and STEM education only amplifies the shortage.  In recent years, we’ve even added the need for “real life” experience to the discussion, believing that boosting student interest in math and the sciences is assisted by educators who are both teachers and practitioners.
Late last year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (yes, the same Bill Gates who founded Microsoft and turned it into the economic giant it became) announced that human capital and strengthening our teacher pool was a priority.  Rightfully so.  Real, lasting education improvement begins with talented, effective teachers.  Without strong math and science teachers in our classrooms — those who understand the content, the pedagogy, and the real-life context — reforms are half-hearted at best.
So why can’t we bring together the Gates Foundation’s vision (and financial commitment) to strengthening and supporting teachers with a new pipeline of knowledgeable STEM practitioners and find a way to get those displaced workers (as well as those from other tech sector companies) out of the boardroom and into the classroom?  Why can’t we use everything we know about pre-service teacher training, necessary pedagogy, and mid-career teacher transitions and build a comprehensive STEM teacher training program that trains tech workers and connects they with communities and school districts in dire need of effective STEM educators?
Such an effort wouldn’t be a first.  Back in 2005, IBM announced it was transitioning a portion of its workforce into K-12 education.  They established relationships with institutions of higher education in key IBM communities to develop mid-career teacher training programs.  They applied the IBM training model to teacher development.  They looked to break new ground in mid-career transition.
Now we have an opportunity for the Gates Foundation, the National Math and Science Initiative, or a host of other organizations to come together and build a better mid-career transition mousetrap.  Yes, we would need to make sure the right workers are entering the program (not everyone is up to the challenge of teaching, and not everyone – no matter how much content knowledge they possess – can teach it).  Yes, we would need to ensure that any training program is research-based and deeply rooted in the pedagogy.  We can’t do drive-by teacher training.  And yes, we know that this doesn’t solve the larger issue of effective math and science teachers in every classroom, particularly those in our at-risk communities.  But it is a start, and a good one.
In STEM programs across the nation, states and school districts are seeking to achieve a number of goals.  First is to boost student interest in the STEM subjects.  Second is to get more students to take STEM classes and pursue STEM degrees.  Third is often how to get those with STEM degrees back into the classroom to teach in those schools where they gained their STEM passions.  These goals take time.  But getting top engineers and video game designers and mathematicians  into the classroom to display their personal passions each and every school day is a good start to building student interest.  With the proper trainings and support, they could become effective STEM teachers equipping a generation of students with the skills and knowledgebase they need to navigate our future challenges and opportunities. 
Now is the time turn some of those economic lemons and turning them into some STEM instruction lemonade.  And the Gates Foundation can do it by first taking care of its own.  Talk about win-win.

Shovel-Ready or Funding-Worthy?

Eduflack STEM, technology, Workforce

Is it too early in the year to already assemble a list of overused words?  How about words we misuse in order to get attention?  I don’t know about you, but Eduflack is already sick-to-death of the term “shovel-ready.”  Across the nation, companies, organizations, elected officials, and individuals are seeking to take full advantage of the pending economic stimulus package.  “Shovel-ready” has become the term de jour.  The thinking is simple.  If there is a trillion dollars to be spent on infrastructure projects, we want to make sure “our project” is ready to go from the start, able to take the money now and make an immediate impact.  Our projects are shovel ready.  Heck, we may even offer a couple of jobs to hold those shovels.  We can break ground right now and start spending the federal dollars today.

When the dust settles on the economic stimulus package this month or the next (probably next), public education is likely to get its share of funding.  School construction will come first.  Technology and Internet access will be there too.  Instructional materials will get their due, and specific special education efforts may get their portion of the education pie as well.
Just check out today’s USA Today, where Greg Toppo looks at school districts looking to get their piece of federal stimulus relief — www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-12-school-stimulus_N.htm  
But as we look at an infusion of addition federal spending on K-12 education — whether it be on bricks-and-mortar infrastructure (school construction), instructional infrastructure (books and materials), or human infrastructure (teachers and teacher development) — should we be prioritizing programs that are simply shovel-ready?  Should we look to fund those initiatives that are ready to accept our checks today, like a bad infomercial, or should we make sure that those potentially hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on efforts that are worthy of such funding?
As we all line up to tap the overflowing funding keg that is the federal economic stimulus package, we should set some clear measures for funding.  How many students will be affected?  What is the expected impact?  What is the return on investment?  What is the research base to demonstrate funding-worthiness?
Yes, we will be spending significant dollars on school construction.  In doing so, we should make sure the dollars are getting into the communities that need the funding the most.  Are we building new schools in our crumbling inner cities or in those districts with the best lobbyists or the most federal juice?  But school construction is what it is.
The bigger issue is how we spend the rest of the available funds.  Investments in instructional and human K-12 infrastructure must focus on ROI.  That means we won’t necessarily see the economic impact this month or this year.  But we need to look for long-term ROI.  How do we increase student achievement and graduation numbers?  How do we ensure that all students have the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st century workforce?  How do we provide teachers the pre-service and in-service instruction they need to deliver the high-impact instruction we expect of all our classrooms?
Take STEM education, for instance.  There are real, tangible, on-the-ground STEM efforts out there that are both shovel-ready and funding-worthy.  There are STEM schools that can be constructed in cities and districts immediately.  There are K-12 programs, particularly in the secondary grades, that need the books, technology, and learning tools today to maximize opportunities  And there are teachers who need both the PD and the financial incentive (such as differential pay) to stand as effective instructors in STEM classrooms.  STEM efforts are shovel-ready.  But they are also funding-worthy.  We know that STEM programs have direct impact on the economy.  They prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow.  They prep teachers for the teaching opportunities of today.  And they serve as the strongest linkages we have between effective K-12 education and stronger, more robust economic opportunities.
There’s nothing wrong with those looking to take advantage of the economic stimulus package, even those who are preparing to make the pending federal legislation their personal post-Christmas Christmas trees, hanging their individual funding needs upon its branches.  That is the American way.  
And our schools are truly suffering.  The majority of states have cut or will soon cut K-12 budgets.  Some states are asking teachers to take pay cuts or benefit reductions.  And just last week, schools in Detroit were asking for public donations of toilet paper and other basics just to keep their doors open.  Times are tough, and the stimulus package is likely to give a needed financial boost to K-12 systems throughout the nation.  Again, look at Toppo’s piece.  School districts are doing whatever it takes to keep funding for public education as level as possible, even if that means lining up behind the banks and the auto companies.
We just need to remember that the stimulus is not intended as a bailout.  It is meant to serve as an investment in our nation.  It is meant to create jobs and strengthen economic opportunity, both now and in the future.  For our school systems, that means it shouldn’t go to the first program in line or the first idea that offers to create a job or make us feel better about ourselves.  We need to focus on the investment side of the equation, ensuring that these new federal dollars are going into efforts that will make a difference — both in the short and long term — and can demonstrate real ROI.  If K-12 dollars are in short supply, shouldn’t we make sure that new dollars are being spent on worthy efforts?  Let’s eliminate shovel-ready from our vocabulary (at least of K-12 vocabulary).  It’s time to practice saying “funding worthy.”

Tapping 21st Century Skills

Eduflack High School, STEM, technology, Workforce

We’re still into the first week of the new year, and it looks like 21st century skills is quickly becoming my white whale for 2009, supplanting my doggedness on Reading First and SBRR last year.  Eduflack was prepared the let the issue sit after some of yesterday’s back and forth.  I had my say, and I acknowledge the learned opinions of those who disagree with me on said say.  But then the Christian Science Monitor has to go and tickle my interest again this morning.

CSM’s Stacy Teicher Khadaroo looks at how teachers are making the necessary adjustments to prepare their students for the challenges and opportunities of what is before them.  The full story can be found at: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What”>www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What really got me, though, was the graph that accompanied the article, looking at the issue of what “creativity” means to superintendents and the business community.  The crux of this is, according to CSM, that “creativity is key for a 21st century workforce.”  What’s startling about the data is how our school leaders and our business leaders see the issue of creativity so differently.  Asked to rank issues on a scale of one to 10, what came in as number one for the business community (problem identification or articulation) ranked ninth with superintendents.  The supes’ top concern (problem solving) only scored in the top eight with our business minds.
Why is this significant?  Like it or not, our schools are preparing our future workers.  These numbers demonstrate there is a real disconnect between the learning priorities set by our schools and the expected outcomes of our employers.  It is no wonder so many business leaders I speak with say that a potential hire with only a high school diploma simply doesn’t have the skill sets needed to thrive in today’s challenging economy.  They’re looking for different things than many K-12s are prioritizing.
Let me be clear.  I am not suggesting that our business leaders should hijack the decisionmaking process in K-12, nor should our public schools be transformed into glorified trade schools serving merely as a pipeline into the workforce.  What I am suggesting is the need for greater collaboration in all areas of the learning process.  School districts need a better understanding of the skills and knowledgebase that local employers are seeking and need to better understand how to offer that within the confines of their current curriculum and state performance measures.  They need to look at innovations that open up new content and that offer the tried-and-true in ways that better engage and better inspire today’s students.  
Businesses need to move beyond simply sponsoring the sports teams and placing ads in the yearbook and become true learning partners.  How can they offer internships to students, opening their eyes to potential careers?  How can they offer externships to teachers, helping them see how their instruction links back to the opportunities that will be available to their students?  How can they help more students see the relevance of school, supporting teachers as they try to boost student achievement and avoid growing drop-out numbers?
It is trite and overused, but sometimes it really does take a village to raise a child.  It definitely takes a wide range of stakeholders to effectively educate them.  And until key stakeholders like superintendents and the business community share a common view on needs and priorities, we will continue to struggle between good intentions and missed opportunities.
   

Wahoowah, But What Is “Value?”

Eduflack higher ed, Workforce

In today’s economic climate, there is growing worry about cost.  This is particularly true in higher education, where we have witnessed cost increases that far exceed the explosions seen in other industries (even healthcare).  We tell every student they need a postsecondary education to succeed in the new world economy, but we usually fail to address the cost issue, figuring new loans will simply take care of the problem.  Students are looking for real value and real savings.

Today, USA Today offers up its Best Value Colleges for 2009 under the headline of “Getting the most bang for your college buck.”  
Eduflack”>www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-07-best-value-colleges_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Eduflack is incredibly proud his alma mater — the University of Virginia — is the top public institution in the nation.  He was surprised, though, to see eduwife’s Stanford University listed in the top 10 for private institutions.
Why?  A Stanford education doesn’t come cheap.  Four years out at the Farm will run you north of $150K or so these days.  Same is true for most of the institutions on the top 10 privates list, universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and CalTech.  Even the top private — Swarthmore College — come with a nearly $49,000 a year price tag (while providing an average grant of $30K).  So how does that make it a “best value,” particularly if you are paying sticker price?
Princeton Review’s Ben Zelevansky defines best value as “a list of schools that provide the best balance of a strong education and a reasonable rate of attendance.  The bottom-line cost for families is our concern here.”
He may be right.  But it is hard to swallow that a “best value” college education is pricier a starter house in many of the communities a graduate may soon enter into.  Even at my proud alma mater, I recognize that U.Va. costs more than your average public university.  Quality costs.  Virginia has taken major steps to expand its access and its financial aid — including its AccessUVA program — but it is hardly a great find in the bargain bin.
I recognize that “best value” does not mean the lowest cost, nor is it intended to.  The selection criteria include academics, costs, and financial aid.  Perhaps, though, we also need to look at return on investment to determine “best value.”  How many of these students go on to graduate or professional schools?  How many are gainfully employed within three months of graduation?  How many are employed in the field in which they studied?  How many are giving back to their alma mater — financial or otherwise — demonstrating they value the impact their school had on their lives?
Best Value Colleges for 2009 is a great start, but families across the country need to dig deeper into the data and really understand how their postsecondary dollars are being spent and whether they have a chance of receiving the return they are seeking. Value is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.  More data sharpens that eye.  

What’s Wrong with 21st Century Skills?

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM, Students, Workforce

Recently, there seems to be growing momentum against the notion of 21st century skills in our K-12 classrooms.  Some find the term just to be a little too trite for their tastes.  Others believe it moves away from the classically liberal arts education, like literature and history, that K-12 was designed for more than a century ago.  And still others think that it is code for turning our high schools into trade schools.

So Eduflack asks the question, what’s wrong with 21st century skills?  We hear time and again that other nations are eating our collective school lunches when it comes to international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.  We worry about how our kids stack up when it comes to math and science and such, worrying that more jobs may either be eliminated or relocated.  We wonder what jobs will be out there when they do graduate, and whether they will be competitive enough to secure those jobs.
In last year’s Quality Counts, EdWeek gave my home state of Virginia an “F” when it came to college preparedness of our students.  In my previous work with the Virginia Department of Education, I heard time and again from businesses in the Commonwealth that today’s high school graduates simply don’t have the skills necessary to fill today’s jobs, let alone tomorrow’s jobs.  Nationally, our high school drop-out rate is still about one-third, meaning one in three students never gains that diploma in the first place.  And for those who get through high school and do move on to postsecondary education, more than half of them need remedial English or math courses when arriving at their higher education institution of choice.
So, again, what is wrong with 21st century skills for our 21st century schools?  Better yet, what is wrong with defining what 21st century skills really are, at least as they relate to today’s K-12 students?
Reading, math, and science are all 21st century skills.  The ability to use technology is a 21st century skill.  Soft skills like problem solving and teamwork and critical thinking and such are 21st century skills as well.  The problem we have is that when we talk about 21st century skills, too many people think we are talking about skills newly discovered in the 21st century.  That just isn’t the case.  Yes, we are talking about core skills that have been around since Plato.  But that doesn’t mean the skills aren’t as relevant today as they were a millennia or two ago.  It just means we need to starting thinking about them and teaching them in new or different ways that make them more relevant in our 21st century world.
In recent weeks, I’ve talked with a good friend who is a former urban superintendent about the future of classroom instruction.  One of his top concerns is the belief that we are “un-plugging” our students once they enter schools.  Here at Eduflack, we’ve used the term “de-skilling.”  For many, this boils down to the issue of technology in the classroom.  When you have students living on computers and MP3s and instant messaging and cell phones, and you have a world and an economy that are equally reliant on the same, where is the logic of putting away all that technology between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.  and teaching reading, math, science, and social studies through 19th century delivery mechanisms?  
Concern on the issue is redoubled when we consider the changing face of the American classroom teacher.  Across the nation, school districts have been experiencing significant retirements and a new face on the teaching workforce.  Incoming teachers, particularly in our urban districts, have been brought up on computers and cell phones.  They’ve likely never used a card catalog, and many of them do not take a daily newspaper.  But that doesn’t mean they are informationally deprived.  They simply get their data through other sources, through 21st century sources aligned with their interests, their skills, and the world in which they live.
I am no shrinking violet when it comes to the advocacy for STEM education and the need to ensure every student is STEM literate.  For me, this isn’t just an issue for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world.  Even that student looking to work on the manufacturing line next to his father is going to need STEM skills in our new economy.  Every student benefits from STEM literacy, regardless of their future education, career, or life path.  That includes providing them the soft and the content skills that we define as 21st century skills.  More importantly, it requires a new way to deliver the content that, for decades, has been deemed essential learning.
What does all this mean?  Ultimately, when we talk about 21st century skills, we aren’t talking about new sets of content and new academic areas of study.  Sure, topics such as engineering still have yet to really be defined in a K-12 environment (and we clearly don’t have a praxis for secondary school engineering teachers), but we are still talking about core academics like reading, writing, math, science, and the social sciences.  At its heart, 21st century skills is about a new delivery system.  It is about moving beyond the chalkboard to the interactive white board.  It is about moving from the card catalog to the World Wide Web.  And it is about moving from rows and rows of single desks into groups of interactive, collaborative students progressing beyond rote memorizations into critical thinking and higher-level learning.  
Ultimately, it is about delivering our core education in a 21st century world through 21st century means.  An education more relevant and interesting for students.  An education more engaging and empowering for teachers  An education more applicable and valued in the economy.  If 21st century skills is a code, then it is simply code for skills that are relevant and outcome-based for all those involved in the learning process.  That is the sort of progress we should be investing in.

Her Name is Rio …

Eduflack High School, higher ed, STEM, Workforce

In recent weeks, we’ve spent a great deal of time talking about economic stimuli, bailouts, and investing in the future.  We talk about what is necessary to compete in the 21st century workforce, what skills our kids need to acquire to compete, and how we as a nation stack up against other nations.  We look at our major industries, wondering which will thrive and which will still just exist a decade or two from now.

Lost in the urgent needs of addressing the very real economic crises of the past few months are the urgent needs of meeting the workforce demands of the next decade.  Are our schools preparing students for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century?  Are we offering the skills students need to compete, both locally and globally?  Do students and families even understand that the jobs of today may no longer be around next year, let alone come graduation day?
So in this discussion of stimulus and reconstruction, how do we ensure that our current K-12 systems are re-skilling to meet the needs of our economy?  How do we ensure that public education does not merely operate in a vacuum, and that it is relevant to the to the economic and community needs of our nation.
Over at The Washington Post, Joshua Partlow writes about specific steps taken to equip today’s students, the future workforce, with the skills and knowledgebase they need to succeed.  How business is stepping in to provide technical and career-focused instruction so students can capitalize on the opportunities of tomorrow.  The wrinkle — Partlow is writing about recent developments in Brazil, not in the United States.  The full story can be found at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803747.html?hpid=topnews   It is a fascinating story, essentially positioning Brazil’s industry in the role of U.S. community college.
As we discuss what our nation is doing to bail out our businesses, shouldn’t we also be talking about what our businesses can do to better assist our K-12 systems?  We tell our kids that they cannot gain meaningful employment without a high school diploma and some form of public education.  Shouldn’t we better engage our local businesses to ensure that high school diploma is relevant and of value in the local economy?  Shouldn’t we better partner with industry to make courses more relevant and to show the pathways from K-12 education to interesting jobs and fascinating careers?  Should we see these public-private partnerships as real partnerships when it comes to goals and instruction, and not just partnerships related to scoreboards and yearbook ads?
For years, Eduflack has taken flack for the belief that our K-12 (and postsecondary) systems bear responsibility for preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s workforce.  The concern I regularly hear is that our schools are not trade schools, they are not training programs.  They are intended, critics say, to provide a broad-based education, a liberal arts education, to get kids thinking and considering.  Once they complete those basics, then students can begin pursuing career paths.  Unfortunately, by then, it is usually too late.  Students lack the foundational courses and knowledge they need to pursue careers.  They lose opportunities to use their high school years to study relevant courses.  And they close off pathways before they even get a few steps down the road.
Actions like those taken by “mining giant” Vale in Brazil demonstrate that others are building a better mousetrap.  We know where our skill gaps are today.  We know where our skill gaps are going to be tomorrow.  Shouldn’t we have business and education working hand-in-hand to fill those gaps now, so we aren’t scrambling at the point of maximum urgency?
One of the reasons I advocate so strongly for STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) education is because STEM begins to answer that question. When we look at states that are doing good work in STEM education — such as Minnesota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania — they succeed because of three key reasons.  First, it is an integrated education effort that includes K-12 and higher education.  Second, it embraces the notion that STEM education is required learning for more than just future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, and that every single student benefits from being STEM literate.  And third, it brings together education and industry, ensuring that the business community sees its role and responsibility in educating a better student and preparing a better workforce.
At the end of the day, economic stimulus is about more than physical infrastructure.  It is about more than the roads and bridges and buildings we’ve been talking about.  Economic stimulus is also about the human infrastructure that serves as the true catalyst and the true engine driving the American economy.  It’s about equipping today’s students with the skills and knowledge they need to win and keep real jobs.  It’s about giving them a reason to take those roads and bridges.  It’s about instruction, skill building, and workforce readiness.  That’s the real hope, that’s the real opportunity, and that’s the real stimulus, both know and for the long term.
  

A National Spotlight on the Next EdSec

Eduflack AFT, Chancellor Klein, early childhood education, Obama, STEM, Workforce

Over the past few days, Cabinet posts in the new Obama Administration have been assigned with great speed and zeal.  It seems we now have a heads for Treasury, State, Justice, Homeland Security, and Commerce.  A new Chief of Staff has been named, and the National Security Advisor seems close at hand.  But the likely question for those who read Eduflack is, wither the U.S. Department of Education?

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano was considered a possibility, until she got Homeland Security.  New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was running a darkhorse campaign for ED, until he was tapped for Commerce.  So what’s next for ED?  Personally, I still think one of the strongest choices is outgoing North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley.  He gets education, he has been willing to reform and innovate, and he has invested in ideas like high school reform, even taking the arrows that came with adopting the national graduation rate and seeing his personal numbers fall.  But no one is calling me for referrals.
If you read the blogs, you hear a number of other names — SC Education Commissioner Inez Tannenbaum, NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, and Chicago Schools Superintendent Arne Duncan chief among them.  The Fordham Foundation has even been pushing United Negro College Fund chief Michael Lomax as a darkhorse candidate.  Lots of choices, all bringing different experiences and different points of view.
It should be no surprise that this morning’s Washington Post weighed in on the Obama cabinet announcements in its lead editorial.  Jobs like State, Treasury, and AG can generate some real excitement.  What has particularly interesting, though, was that WaPo dedicated the final paragraph (and the subhead of the editorial) to the selection of an EdSec.  No, we aren’t focusing our attentions on Defense or EPA or Labor or Veterans Affairs.  We aren’t looking at key diplomatic postings.  Instead, WaPo is recognizing the value of Education in this perfect storm of economic uncertainty, a shifting workforce, and a unprecedented demands for new skills among new workers.
What did the Post say?  Here it is, word for word:

Another selection that will merit scrutiny is Mr. Obama’s education secretary: Will the choice reflect his stated commitment to reform? Will it be someone with hands-on experience in education and a proven willingness to experiment? While the new president’s attention is understandably focused on the economy, not to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s critical to have someone who comes to the education post with those credentials.   

In one paragraph, the Washington Post has done what Ed in 08 and countless other organizations tried to do — it has raised the profile of the federal role in education and has highlighted the importance of an EdSec in times of economic uncertainty.  And it did so without bemoaning the NCLB regime or the problems and roadblocks education has faced these past eight years.  It did so by focusing on the future and what may be possible.

WaPo is absolutely right.  The next U.S. Secretary of Education needs to reflect the Obama Administration’s commitment to reform.  He or she needs to be an EdSec willing to experiment and innovate.  An EdSec willing to effectively use the bully pulpit and proclaim that some actions and programs of the past simply don’t work, and we need to build a better mousetrap.  The EdSec needs to reconfirm our national belief that every student can succeed, when provided with proven instruction, effective and well-supported teachers, and a school system invested in their success.  The EdSec needs to become the educational motivator in chief, reminding us that education improvement affects all, and positive changes lift all learning boats.  That an education focus today impacts health, justice, jobs, and the economy tomorrow.  That education does not happen in a vacuum; it is the lifeblood of our nation and its future.
Does the new EdSec need hands-on experience in education?  That’s a question that many a policy expert has been debating since November 4 (or before).  The larger question is what is hands-on experience in education?  Does that mean they once taught, either at the K-12 or postsecondary level?  Does that mean the EdSec needs to be a former superintendent (remembering we have only had one of those previously, and many were resistant of it from the start)?  Does it mean they’ve led education reforms, be at the local, state, or federal level?  Yes, an EdSec needs education experience, but it is all a matter of what your definition of experience is.
Personally, Eduflack would broaden the search criteria for the new EdSec.  Experience and a willingness to experiment are important.  So are the following:
* A visionary who can see where 21st century education should take us, rather than be bound by the confines of the 20th century status quo
* A leader who can build bridges and strengthen relationships, establishing a network of support for federal education policy with teachers, parents, business leaders, community leaders, higher education, education organizations, the community at large, and even the media
* A thinker who views education through a P-20 lens, recognizing the equal importance of early childhood education, K-12 education (and the differences between elementary, middle,and secondary schools and their needs), and higher education
* A CEO who brings in the right people to lead the right efforts, including prioritizing teacher recruitment and quality, early childhood education, STEM, and college preparedness (all parts of the Obama change agenda)
* A rhetorical leader, one who can build stakeholder and national buy-in for major education improvements, even if we don’t have the funds to pay for it yet.  A true master of ED’s bully pulpit (and this is a character trait way overdo at ED).
* An individual committed to education improvement.  More importantly, an individual committed to the notion that every child in this nation can succeed when provided the proper support, instruction, and attention, both at school and at home.
On top of that, we need an EdSec who is going to better engage parents in the process, including families as part of the reform and improvement transformation.  We need an EdSec who better engages the business community as well, seeing them as more than just a funding source, but as a partner for identifying skills gaps and supplementing instruction with expertise that aligns with future needs.  And, yes, we need an EdSec who can effectively work with the teachers unions, partnering with them on school improvements and finding ways to work together, rather than work around or work against each other.
Does such a person exist?  Sure, I could name a few.  At the start of this parlor game, I believed a governor was the strongest choice, particularly if it was one who could blend an understanding of education policy, a track record of improvements, and an ability to master the bully pulpit and the relationship-building game.  But the Obama cabinet is already looking heavy with governors.  At the end of the day, the name of the new EdSec isn’t as important as the qualities he or she brings to the job.  Education experience and a commitment to reform.  Track record of relationship building and partnership development.  World view that education is a P-20 continuum and impacts the student and the community well after the schoolhouse door is exited for the last time.  We
need a leader to inspire, innovate, and motivate.  And we need it now.
 
  

The Long View for Superintendents

Eduflack Achievement gap, High School, higher ed, Workforce

What is important to an urban superintendent?  What keeps him or her up at night?  Years ago, Eduflack remembers getting into a discussion with a former boss on such issues.  At the time, I was told superintendents simply don’t care about college-going rates or what happens after the merriment of commencement commences.  Life after isn’t their concern, this boss lectured me, superintendents simply care about keeping the bodies in their schools and seeing them through the 12 years.  Then the work is done.

At the time, I fought the notion.  It seemed awfully cynical (even for a cynic like me) and lacked the sophistication of school district leaders seeking where they fit along the P-20 continuum.  It meant superintendents were focused on the process, and not on the outcomes or the product of their work.  I refused to believe that.
When my father was president of a public institution of higher education in New England, one of his top concerns was making sure his kids graduated ready for the workforce.  He actually issued a guarantee to the local business community, offering to take back any graduate who was found to lack the soft skills a college graduate with a certain major should have.  It seemed novel at the time, and took many a stakeholder aback.  But it was a bold statement.  It said the local college cared about the product of its work, and measured it success, in part, on what happens long after student had taken their final course or paid their final bill.
After today’s Education Trust conference, Eduflack feels validated.  I can see that many a superintendent shares the view of my father (and not that former boss), and are deeply concerned about the success of their graduates AFTER graduation.  District leaders such as Chicago’s Arne Duncan, San Jose Unified’s Don Iglesias, and Montebello’s Janet Tomcello, along with the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals’ Jim Ballard, all spoke to the need for preparing ALL kids for college and careers.   
It obviously helps that this is also a priority shared by a thick checkbook such as the Gates Foundation.  But it was reassuring to hear these leaders talk about college and career preparation in a meaningful way, recognizing the need for improved rigor and relevance in the classroom, knowing that education is not completed at the end of the 12th grade, and embracing the notion that today’s jobs require a more comprehensive education reflective of the more complex work and life environments we’re all facing.
We ask a great deal of our superintendents.  We want them to get all students proficient as soon as possible.  We ask them to show AYP. We want them to close achievement gaps.  We want problem schools turned around quickly.  And we want 100% high school graduation rates to boot.  Now we expect those diplomas to stand for something, both in terms of college readiness and workforce preparedness.
We’ve all heard the data on college remediation and how more than half of today’s college freshmen (two- and four-year institutions) have to take either remedial English or remedial math.  I’ve done survey after survey and focus group after focus group with business leaders who share the sentiment that today’s high school graduates lack the skill sets to excel in today’s workforce.  Clearly, we are facing a gap here, a gap between our aspirations and our realities.
If leaders like Duncan and Iglesias are serious, maybe it is a time for our major urban districts to offer their own guarantee.  If a Chicago Public Schools graduate lacks the reading or math skills to do college-level learning, CPS will take them back and get them up to speed.  If a recent graduate from San Jose lacks the literacy or problem-solving skills to work in the local factory, San Jose Unified will step in and further equip their grads.  These supes will stand behind their diplomas, and make good on all of them.
Such guarantees may seem gimmicky, but they work.  We see a guarantee, and we assume it is a stronger product.  We believe those who sell it believe in its quality.  Imagine the power of a high school guarantee.  We say the superintendent and his principals all stand behind the value of the education the provided.  Talk about a confidence builder for those looking for college and career preparedness.

The Call for ROI in School Reform

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, Gates Foundation, STEM, Workforce

Ever since Eduflack got involved in STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education, I’ve spent a great deal of time talking, writing, and thinking about the ties between public education and economic development.  As I’ve said before, education does not operate in a vacuum.  By focusing on relevant, high-quality, results-based education, we directly impact student learning.  We also greatly affect jobs, economic development, healthcare, the environment, and even national security.  Education is the common linkage between all of our national areas of concern, and it is a linkage that deserves our utmost attention.

It’s no secret that our national attention has been solely fixed on the economy this past month or so.  Personally, I’m tired or reading the articles wondering when the markets will officially crater.  Each day, I look at the Business section, thinking the Edufamily needs to heed Warren Buffett’s advice and invest what we have now, buying when people are scared (and selling during the joyous times).
Through it all, I’ve given little thought as to how this economic roller coaster is going to affect public education.  Sure, we know that colleges and universities are worried about how students will pay tuition and how money concerns will impact public versus private decisions (just check out the front page of today’s USA Today for that story).  We worry about the short- and long-term impact the current rises and falls will have on philanthropy and the vast supports coming in from foundations, corporations, and others invested in improving the public schools.  (Personally, I was glad to hear that Bill and Melinda Gates are personally guaranteeing all of their current grantmaking, even as Microsoft stock has lost about 25% in value in the past month).  And yes, some may even think how reduced earnings, rising unemployment, and shrinking property tax pools impact a state’s ability to fulfill all their obligations.
This morning, the Boston Globe really drives this issue home.  Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is now dramatically scaling back his ambitious plans for P-20 education improvement, citing the state’s budget woes.  Plans for free education for all — from preK to community college are now being scuttled, all in the name of economic woes.  Check out the full article here — www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2008/10/27/patrick_pulling_back_on_education/  
Over the next decade, the great education improvements are going to happen at the state level.  We often forget that the feds are only responsible for 7 cents of every dollar spent on public education.  The federal government’s greatest strength is that of the bully pulpit — highlighting the successes of reform, spotlighting best practices, focusing on the issues of most importance, corralling our desire to jump from issue to issue to issue and instead focus on the few areas where we can really boost student achievement and make a lasting difference.
It’s up to the states (and the school districts) to implement what works and do what it takes to help all students.  But what happens when the financial wells run dry?  How do we invest more in education, as Gov. Patrick has proposed, when we have fewer dollars to pay for healthcare, police, prisons, pensions, roads, and other equally important issues?  
It is a good question.  But there is a better one.  How do we improve education without boosting our financial commitment?  How do we reform our system at the $10,000 or $14,000 per student we are already paying in struggling districts, without inserting more dollars into what may be clearly broken?  How do we better use our existing resources to improve options, improve quality, and improve results for all students, and not just the fortunate ones?  How do we build a better educational mousetrap with the materials already lying around the workshop?
The minds who know best say our national economic pain is likely a multi-year ride, with good days and bad days, but ongoing worry and angst.  If that is true, the visionaries who can answer the question of how we do better educationally with fewer resources are ultimately the ones who will rule the kingdom.  We have tough choices to make.  Now is the time to set education priorities and identify true return on investment.  Now is the time to think hard, act boldly, and spend wisely.  The bumper sticker is simple, we need to focus on what works.  It’s a new concept for the education field, but ROI is soon going to rule the day.