School Reform Gridlock: How Communication Failure Threatens Progress.

There's a problem growing in the education community. It may not attract a great deal of news media attention, but it is real and significant and, if left unchecked, it may undermine serious, well-intentioned efforts to reform education.

The problem? Communication gridlock.

For much of the past three years, Public Agenda has maintained close contact with the issues and players involved in the education reform debate. Through several national research reports, we have examined the perspectives and concerns of major reform stakeholders--teachers, principals, administrators, parents, school board members, and superintendents.

Through citizen education campaigns in newspapers and on television, we have worked closely with communities struggling to raise the level of public dialogue about education and economic competitiveness.

As Public Agenda has focused on this issue, we have noticed a common thread of miscommunication--and misunderstanding about the importance of communication--among the education communities with which we have worked.

Dual Dilemma

The communication dilemma is twofold. On one hand, the problem is internal, within the education community itself. Our recent research report, "Divided Within, Besieged Without: The Politics of Education Reform in Four American School Districts" points out that education stakeholders--the very people who need to work together to achieve real progress in reforming our schools--seem continually pulled apart by deeply entrenched fears, suspicions, prejudices, and turf battles.

During our research, we found teachers who had such little contact with administrators that they learned more about policy changes in their schools from the press than from leadership. We found parents who suspected that educators deliberately made it difficult for them to obtain information and register concerns. We also found administrators who were so buffeted by teacher skepticism that they believed any effort to reach out to educators would be viewed as a publicity stunt.

The communications divide within the education community is great and stands as a significant obstacle to reform.

Public Engagement

That is only part of the story. The education community also is plagued by a significant external communication problem. Educators have, in many respects, failed to engage the general public in an open, two-way dialogue on the need for school reform.

Public Agenda has pinpointed three distinct examples of how and why educators fall short in this regard. We also have gained insights into how they might begin to communicate better.

* Instant public engagement.

In many communities, reformers spend a great deal of time discussing among themselves the pros and cons of alternative proposals to improve the schools. After deciding on a course of action, they announce it to the public, assuming people will immediately embrace the proposed reforms. They are shocked when their proposals, as is frequently the case, are received coolly.

The problem often lies not so much with the reforms themselves but the way leaders have communicated about them--or, more accurately, not communicated. Public engagement does not happen overnight. The public needs ample time and opportunity to consider the benefits and drawbacks of various reforms--the same time and opportunity leaders themselves already have had.

* The tin ear.

In many cases, leaders do make serious efforts to involve the public in the reform discussion, but ironically, after soliciting the public's input, they ignore or de-legitimize its views. Consider the following example.

Public Agenda recently worked with the New Standards Project to determine how people respond to different proposals aimed at raising academic standards. When we asked citizens how they felt about "heterogenous grouping," many people said they were very uncomfortable with the idea. Among people's misgivings about the proposal: Would low-achieving students be made to feel inferior? Would higher achievers be held back, spending all their time teaching rather than learning? Would teachers be less effective?

But many education leaders seemed unwilling to accept the public's concerns at face value. They believed people's fears about heterogeneous grouping stemmed from racism. Yet survey data show that African American parents have the same qualms about heterogeneous grouping that white parents do. By failing to hear what the public was really saying -- and by delegitimizing its views -- leaders drastically reduced the chances for productive conversation on this proposal.

This pattern holds true with regard to other public concerns about education, too. Survey after survey--including one of Public Agenda's most recent reports on education, "First Things First: What Americans Expect from the Public Schools"--has shown that when it comes to discussions of school reform, the public is preoccupied with three main issues: safety, order, and basic skills.

But rather than trying to gain a better understanding of the public's concerns and addressing them head-on, too many leaders dismiss them as evidence of "how little people understand about what is happening in schools today." They press on with their own agenda, calling for "new assessments" and "certificates of mastery," for "site-based management" and "outcome-based education."

Meanwhile, much of the public, confused about what these reforms really mean and frustrated because their concerns have not been addressed, tunes out of the discussion.

* Fear of flying.

Education leaders sometimes fail to understand what public engagement entails or fail to listen carefully to the public's concerns, but in some cases the communication problem is deeper. Public Agenda has found some instances where educators simply are reluctant to invite the public into the reform dialogue.

Why are some educators so hesitant to initiate a public dialogue on school reform? In our research, we have been struck by the number of education leaders who continue to be wary of "outsiders"--whether from business, the news media, or the general public--becoming too involved in reform discussions.

What's more, we have found that leaders sometimes mistake public ambivalence about the current direction of public schools or proposed reform agenda with lack of concern. Since some educators believe the public "doesn't care about children and underserved communities" or has turned its back on the public schools, they see no point in trying to talk with or listen to members of their community.

Understanding Reform

Those who care about the future of public schools need to recognize the importance of communicating with the public more openly and honestly. This is more important today than ever. The education reform movement, launched with such high hopes several years ago, is encountering stiff resistance from many parents, teachers, taxpayers, and community leaders--individuals who were expected to be supporters.

But until citizens understand why reform is necessary, what logic brought leaders to propose particular reforms, and how these reforms will affect their community and children, they are unlikely to endorse broad changes in the schools.

The education community faces a great challenge. For school reform to succeed will require the understanding and support of the real education community--the parents, teachers, and students who will either make change happen or fight it every step of the way.

Public Agenda is a non-profit, non-partisan public opinion research firm.