Policy Recommendations on the 20th Anniversary of the Einstein Fellowship

Today Albert Einstein Fellows will be visiting the offices of Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to discuss the importance of having teachers involved in public policy. After the conclusion of our Summit at the Wilson Center, we developed a one page document of policy recommendations to distribute. The text of that document follows.

The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellows, some of the nation’s leading educators, gathered in Washington, DC on June 28-29, 2010, for a 20th Anniversary Summit.  Hosted by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Summit brought together more than 80 current and former Einstein Fellows along with distinguished guest speakers from the White House, Federal agencies, national education organizations, and the U.S. Congress.  The goal of the Summit was to generate recommendations to inform and improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. The Summit covered a variety of educational issues, including national curriculum standards, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and educational equity.

Recommendations of the Einstein Fellows:

  • Support initiatives to enable school systems to implement innovative teaching practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
  • Increase funding for Pre-K-12 education, especially programs that impact each child as opposed to competitive grants.  Federal funding is vital to the maintenance and development of STEM programs in states and districts.
  • Establish national standards for science education and support provisions in the reauthorization of ESEA that give equal treatment to science as to mathematics and language arts. Science knowledge and skills, as part of a comprehensive STEM approach, are vital for all students and provide 21st Century workforce skills, promote national security and global competitiveness.
  • Include K-12 teachers, such as Einstein Fellows, in the formulation of professional development or curriculum.  The real world experience of classroom teachers is an overlooked asset when new programs are developed.
  • Base school and student assessment on multiple measures and formative assessments.
  • Create and fund a program to place science specialists to teach and coach in elementary schools.  Elementary schools can benefit from the presence of competent STEM teachers who also have skills in working with K-12 students.  They can teach STEM and also model effective strategies as instructional coaches.
  • Support legislation that encourages research-based instruction and teacher training.
  • Support federal programs to purchase science equipment and provide STEM training to teachers at the K-6 grade levels.  This will enable the delivery of inquiry-based, hands-on science experiences.
  • Establish guidelines to ensure all administrators are competent and knowledgeable in STEM education.  Student success and instructional quality depends on strong school leadership.
  • Support initiatives and funding to enable states and districts to lengthen the school day or school year.

Planning the Program for the E20 Summit

Blog Post at Luke Laurie’s Teacher Blog : https://lukelaurie.wordpress.com/

Teacher’s Network Leadership Institute Fellow, Policy Work for 2009-2010

The Einstein Fellowship 20th Anniversary Summit:

Planning the Program


During the 2009-2010 school year I committed myself to engaging in policy work, rather than action research. My initial plan was to advocate for policies to improve STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. Little did I know, I would be swept up by a project that would become a national summit of leading STEM educators.


This year, 2010, marks the 20th Anniversary of the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship, also known as the Einstein Fellowship. This unique program brings teachers of science and mathematics to Washington, D.C. to work in the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and various federal government agencies, such as the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, NASA, and NOAA. Recipients of the fellowship are known as Einstein Fellows. They serve one-year terms living and working in Washington, D.C. With their extensive classroom knowledge, experience, and credentials, Einstein Fellows provide practical insights and “real world” perspectives to policy makers and program managers.

From 2006-2007, I served as an Einstein Fellow in the office of Congressman Mike Honda. During my fellowship, I had many opportunities to learn about policy, legislation, and government. I also had the opportunity to contribute to policy by advising the Congressman on education, appropriations, and environmental issues, and by participating in briefings and roundtable discussions on those issues. My work focused on education equity, enhancing science education, and improving the understanding of global warming. Following my fellowship year, I returned to the classroom, to continue my career teaching junior high science and robotics in Santa Maria, CA.

Summary of Work:

In Fall of 2009, I joined a group of former Einstein Fellows in conversations about the possibility of holding an event to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Einstein Fellowship, by bringing Fellows from the last 20 years together for an event in Washington D.C.. We formed a Planning Committee of fellows who were committed to spending a significant amount of time making all the decisions and preparations that would be necessary. Through numerous conference calls and thousands of emails, this grassroots event evolved to become the Einstein Fellowship 20th Anniversary Summit (called the E20 Summit by the Planning Committee), which will be held in Washington, D.C. from June 27 through June 30, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. This summary was written after the planning process was complete, but prior to the actual Summit.

The Planning Committee conceptualized the event to be less of a celebration, and more of an opportunity to have a meeting of minds, to share ideas and build upon the vast and varied experiences of Einstein Fellows. We divided the work into three subcommittees: Fundraising; Logistics and Budget; and Program. The Fundraising Subcommittee successfully harnessed the support of government agencies, science and education organizations, and industry partners to provide funding to carry out the objectives of the E20 Summit. The Logistics and Budget Subcommittee coordinated the venues, vendors, and bookkeeping. I took leadership of the Program Subcommittee and became the Chair to coordinate the development of the substantive components of the Summit.

The goals of the E20 Summit, as stated in our proposal, were as follows:

  • Publish and disseminate a formal report of the E20 Summit proceedings with key recommendations to inform ESEA (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, commonly known as No Child Left Behind) and improve STEM education;
  • Recognize the accomplishments of Einstein Fellows and their collective contributions to policy, programs and the advancement of K-12 STEM education;
  • Promote the professional capabilities of Einstein Fellows, and other nationally recognized teachers, to national, state and local STEM education stakeholders;
  • Illustrate the efficacy of the Einstein Fellowship program as a best practice of STEM policy inclusion for teachers and professional development model;
  • Formalize and strengthen the Einstein Fellowship network.

It was a joy to work with the other members of the Planning Committee and the Program Subcommittee. On many aspects we shared common goals. Where we disagreed, we discussed our differences in a constructive manner and found compromises that everyone could accept. All participants had served as Einstein Fellows within the last twenty years in various offices and agencies, and were from many different parts of the United States. Most were science teachers of various disciplines, and some taught mathematics. The wealth of knowledge and experience in the group was incredible. Each Fellow had many valuable connections that we were able to draw from as valuable resources to implement the goals of the Summit.

The Program Subcommittee formulated the content of the Summit. Through a lengthy brainstorming process and a series of collaborative discussions, the Subcommittee created a list of possible topics around which workshops, panel discussions, or roundtable discussions could be created. The group solicited input from active members of the Planning Committee, as well as other Fellows who might attend the Summit. From this input, we created a schedule covering topics pertinent to Einstein Fellows, and relevant to the current national dialog on STEM education. We assigned facilitators to manage the sessions and worked with them to connect with experienced speakers and panelists in positions of authority within the appropriate fields. Throughout this development process, all relevant information was compiled into a document that would become the final Program for the Einstein 20th Anniversary Summit.

The final Program is a 21-page document, and includes the following elements:

  • A welcome statement
  • A description of the three locations for events, The Wilson Center, The Rayburn House Office Building, and The J.W. Marriott Hotel in Washington, D.C.
  • A brief agenda summary
  • A detailed program of all sessions and events
  • The text of H.Res. 1322, a Congressional Resolution Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the Einstein Fellowship, which passed the House on June 15, 2010.
  • A list of the Planning Committee and Subcommittee members.
  • Brief biographic information about all of the facilitators, panelists, and featured guests
  • A full list of approximately 200 Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellows from the first 20 years.
  • A list of sponsors and supporters

Looking Ahead:

Following the Summit, a report of the findings will be published by the Wilson Center and distributed nationally. In addition, we will be forming an Einstein Policy Team, which will work to promote and advocate for ways to improve STEM education using the findings of the Summit. The Einstein Policy Team will be involved in advocacy at the local, State, and National level. It is our hope that through this advocacy, we will be able to make notable contributions and give teachers a stronger voice.

More info on the Summit can be found at the official website:


STEM Education and the Reauthorization of ESEA

Seeking Discussion Panelists for the Einstein Fellowship 20th Anniversary Summit-

Session: STEM Education and the Reauthorization of ESEA

UPDATE: The participants on this panel have been selected.

More information on the Summit can be found here:


Educational Armageddon

Blog Post from Luke Laurie’s Teacher Blog: https://lukelaurie.wordpress.com/

If we fire teachers to fix schools, who will take their place?

Under No Child Left Behind, schools serving the most disadvantaged populations of students are doomed to jump through the Machiavellian hoops of norm-referenced accountability. Indeed the expectations of these schools share much in common with the perennial “Saw” movies. Schools are expected to chew off their own arms in order to escape the chains of the testing apparatus, only to find they must climb a ladder to get out of the cage.

In the star-studded film Armageddon, scientists discover a giant meteor racing towards the Earth, and summon up a crack team of experts and load them into a top-secret armor-plated space shuttle with unheard of capabilities. Just when you think the world is going to end, the U.S.A. pulls an ace in the hole by revealing that they have all the technology in place to stop an impending disaster, and the people to do it. (Why you would keep this technology secret is the real question.) Part of the metaphor, which will at some point be clear, is that, while no one knew about it, we had actually invested vast resources to address problem that, while inevitable, was highly unlikely in any finite amount of time.

In the real world, Armageddon is going on in many schools across the country. Thanks to No Child Left Behind, and its successor, Race to the Edge, States are implementing drastic measures at schools that have been deemed underperforming by intergalactic standards. These measures can include firing the principal, firing or moving the teachers, and closing the school.

Now, on its surface these measures might sound reasonable. If a school were something like Jabba’s Palace, it would make good sense to shut the place down. But to set foot on the grounds of some of these “failing” schools, one would be hard pressed to find a lack of effort, a lack of caring, or anything other than the hardest working people around, dealing with impossible objectives and stark realities that remain unchanged, and in some cases, worsened, by education policy.

I teach in a school that probably missed California’s official “Your F’’d List” by a decimal point. The characteristics of nearly all of the schools on this list are: 1) They serve students who live in poverty. 2) The education level of parents of their students is low (many having not finished elementary school) 3) Drugs and crime are common in the communities served 4) They have a high percentage of students who are still learning English. These are schools working extremely hard, some having great success, but not meeting the bar set in an ivory tower far away, where only data matters, and only th simplest and easiest to gather data (The McNamara Falacy).

In the card game, Magic, the Gathering, the card called Armageddon destroys all lands in play. Land, in the game, is the source of energy, the ability to make progress. The card debilitates everyone playing, including the “caster.” Firing all the teachers works the same way. The teachers are everything you’ve got.

There are some notable ironies in eliminating the teaching staff of struggling schools. Often, these schools have staff with the least experience. Many schools in tough neighborhoods have work conditions that are not conducive to teacher retention. Teachers might get frustrated with the quality of the facilities, the lack or resources and support, their sense of safety, the pressure of unreasonable expectations, or the overall difficulty of the job due to the disadvantages of the students. These teachers might not have the highest qualifications. Those who did, mostly went elsewhere. These teachers might have only 1 to 3 years on the job, they’re struggling to figure things out, and the State comes in and says they’re out of job, and replaces them with ???

Another ironic situation can arise for some of the most experienced, hardest working teachers who have committed their lives to working with the most difficult populations of students. Imagine a teacher who has taught for 20 years in a school where many others have come and gone, who knows the student population, has strategies for working with students from poverty, English Language Learners, or students without parental support. Now imagine that teacher caught up in a policy that fires all the teachers in a given school, in the name of reform.

Back to the movie: There is no secret bunker with an armor-plated space shuttle. There is no warehouse full of highly-qualified teachers ready and willing to go into any high-need school and perform miracles. We need policies that are based on best practices, not pipe dreams. Do we really want Owen Wilson teaching Math? Let’s work with the resources we have, intelligently, and not start Armageddon.

Educational Equity- Legislative Solutions

Blog Post from Luke Laurie’s Teacher Blog: https://lukelaurie.wordpress.com/

Good Administration or governance requires knowledge.Our Democracy rests on the quality of public education.

The fundamental unfairness in funding, opportunity, and achievement in America’s schools is the underlying reason for a significant portion of federal education funding (Title 1), and is both a reflection and contributing factor to the continued divisions and disparity between socioeconomic, geographic, and racial groups in the U.S.

It’s well known that the funding and offerings in schools vary greatly between states, and greatly within states. It is a sad fact that we have poor schools. These are schools that serve low income students, are underfunded themselves, and are saddled with all the baggage of the worst social problems that plague our youth. What do we do?

Within education, there is extensive dialog, tremendous effort, and massive amounts of research into the fundamental causes of the problems in so-called low performing schools. The coffers of philanthropy have opened to the problems as well. These schools are receiving targeted assistance and microscopic scrutiny. But there’s something else going on.

Schools are not equal. More than that, they are not equitable. On a basic, fundamental level, public schools that primarily serve the children of wealthy people have superior facilities, more diverse learning opportunities, superior academic offerings, and fewer obstacles to instruction. We have schools with endowments and foundations, and others with lock-downs and portables. Why do the children of the wealthy deserve more than other children?

There are legal, geographic, and historical reasons for the inequities in schools, and the inequities in funding. Often, policy-makers throw up their hands at this glaring issue, because the barriers seem so great. Without getting too much into the fine detail, the following is a list of suggestions from one lone philosopher of ways to address the inequities in education from the federal level:

Education Equity-Federal Policy Suggestions

1) Amend ESEA

  1. Require minimum adequate education and facilities in schools

  2. Prevent the narrowing or limiting of the curriculum

  3. Require states to report on inequities and to address inequities

  4. Monitor and assist states from the federal level in addressing inequities

2) Create an office of Education Equity in the Department of Education

3) Amend the U.S. Constitution: Establish Education as a Civil Right

Education Equity-Federal Policy Suggestions (detail)

1) Amend The Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESEA (currently also called No Child Left Behind-NCLB) four ways are proposed to amend the next reauthorization:

  • Include language in the bill that establishes the requirement of a minimum adequate education and adequate school facilities for all school age children in states receiving funds under ESEA. The definitions of these terms would be vital, but could include items such as course offerings, athletics, class size, staff to student ratios, individualized assistance, and so on. Such an approach could be similar to H.R.2373 – The Student Bill of Rights (Fattah).
  • Include language in the bill that prevents the limiting of curriculum and educational offerings in schools in states receiving funds under ESEA. Such language could be included in the bill both to clarify the purpose of providing federal funds for education and to prevent the kind of abuses that occurred in response to No Child Left Behind. Under NCLB, schools were rewarded for “gaming the system” by reducing course offerings or redirecting time away from the subjects that were not tested to Mathematics and Language arts. By reducing time spent on PE, science, history, and the arts, schools could show marginal gains in achievement, while depriving students of uncounted and undocumented learning opportunities. This provision could specify that education should be well rounded, and should include a wide variety of subjects for all students, regardless of their language ability, ethnicity, or disability. Such language was circulated in the 110th Congress by Congressman Mike Honda.
  • Establish State Reporting Requirements that will strong-arm states into addressing the inequities in their schools. ESEA requires states to report on all kinds of data about schools, students, teachers, and learning. Why not require in these reports efforts and progress by states on creating equal educational opportunities in their education systems? Such a report could include, for example:
  • The degree of inequity in funding in the state; highest publicly funded schools vs. lowest, as well as average funding levels, etc. Perhaps in coordination with the National Center for Education Statistics or one of these research bodies.
  • The racial and economic makeup of the lowest funded schools and highest funded schools
  • The educational offerings, programs, and facilities in highest and lowest funded schools (is there music, athletic facilities, etc. in low funded schools)
  • The efforts being taken by states to promote equity in both funding and offerings in schools
  • Legislative and legal factors that inhibit implementation of an equitable education system
  • Steps being taken to address the legislative and legal factors

States could then be required to be assessed on whether they are meeting the requirements of pursuing educational equity within their state, and could receive guidance from the fed on how to address these issues- see below.

2) Create an office of Education Equity in the Department of Education to study and to provide assistance to states to address the inequities in their schools. The office could be responsible for assimilating state data on educational equity, publishing reports on nationwide equity issues, in coordination with other statistical bodies. The office could also act in a capacity to assist states in revising their tax codes, budgets, and education codes in order to implement equitable education in their state.

3) Amend the U.S. Constitution to establish education as a fundamental civil right to be preserved and maintained by the federal government. This is a ‘hammer of the gods’ approach to addressing a broad variety of issues, while creating a whole new set of problems to deal with. The U.S., in spite of what you may read or hear, does not have a cohesive education system, it has 50 separate ‘systems’ that are often in competition with one another for Federal funds. The Federal government doesn’t coordinate our education system, it herds the United States of cats.

Education is not one of the powers explicitly given to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution. Receiving a quality education is not explicitly listed as a fundamental civil right in the bill of rights. Therefore, the obligation to provide education falls to the States, who accept the duty with varying degrees of commitment, and with different priorities. Part of the reason why NLCB was such a catastrophe was because it was an attempt to exert greater authority over the states, who prior to the bill saw the federal role in education as one of benefactor, not overseer.

I would imagine that some states would fight the idea of federal control of education tooth and nail, but I would imagine that some states would be happy to shrug off the burden they’ve neglected for so long.

The Einstein Fellowship 20th Anniversary Summit

Blog Post: https://lukelaurie.wordpress.com

Einstein Fellows in the Library of Congress

The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship is a special opportunity for math and science teachers to work in Washington D.C. in various government agencies or in the U.S. Congress, in order to contribute to federal policy. Participating teachers are expected to take their experience back to the classroom or education community in order to become teacher leaders, however, some many have stayed in positions working on education or science policy. During my fellowship, I had the opportunity to work in the U.S. House of Representatives with Congressman Mike Honda of Silicon Valley, working on issues related to education and the environment.

2010 marks the 20th Anniversary of the Einstein Fellowship. Consequently, several fellows are working together to plan the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship 20th Anniversary Summit, also known by the planners as the E20 Summit.

The 20th Anniversary Summit is destined to be an event for the ages. The Summit will bring together current and former fellows, some of whom returned to the classroom to be leading science and math teachers, and others who became policy experts, legislative aides, or took positions in the administration. The Summit will be a meeting of the minds of people with experience in the classroom as well as public policy, to address the pivotal issues of the day, in Education, in Policy, and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).

The Summit will produce a written product, possibly the “Einstein Report” collecting the wealth of knowledge of Einstein Fellows, and offering policy recommendations to improve education.

I’m looking forward to this amazing experience.

The Einstein Fellowship 20th Anniversary Summit will be held in Washington D.C., June 27-30, 2010.

For more information on the Summit, or to become involved see the official website:


Kevin Phillips – Political and Economic Analysis from a Guy Who Keeps Being Right

I like to read books on economics. I’ve found time and again that my field, education, is inextricably tied to economic shifts and economic policy. Two books I’ve read recently deal with the details of what’s been going wrong in finance, monetary policy, fiscal policy, and government that has led to the current recession, and don’t bode well for the future of U.S. prosperity.

I highly recommend the following books: Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism

and American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century

Below are some videos where you can hear Kevin Phillips discuss some of these topics:

The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship: Perspectives of a Science Teacher Working in the U.S. House of Representatives

I spent a year working in the U.S. House of Representatives on education and environmental policy in 2006 to 2007. In the Summer of 2009, I returned for a brief while to reprise my role. The following paper describes my experiences.

Download or view the .pdf of this paper


Al Gore, Luke Laurie, Mike Honda-in photo on the wall of the official Capitol "Shaft"

The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship is a federal program that awards outstanding teachers of mathematics and science with the opportunity to work on federal policy in Washington D.C. for one year. The author was a recipient of the Einstein Fellowship in 2006, after working for nine years as a junior high science teacher specializing in robotics and engineering outreach. This paper summarizes the process of receiving the fellowship, the work completed during the fellowship year, and the perspectives of a classroom teacher working directly on education policy. The author returned to the classroom at the culmination of his fellowship year. On the eve of the 20th year of the Einstein Fellowship, readers may discover the significance of this program, and, if willing, pursue the fellowship and policy work themselves.

National Curriculum Standards

I have a newer post on this topic: https://lukelaurie.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/u-s-national-curriculum-standards-for-the-future-of-the-nation/

National Curriculum Standards- TNLI Discussion for May
Luke Laurie
Santa Barbara County, California

(Update 12-09: This Post is the 7th hit on Google for the search term “National Curriculum Standards.” I hope you give the post some consideration, and feel free to leave comments. I’m interested in your viewpoints.)

I want to thank my colleague, Kristen Anderson, for bringing the topic of National Standards to our discussion. The problems associated with implementing National Standards highlight the difficulties related to creating any unified education policy in the United States.

Arguments Against National Standards
While I believe that there are compelling arguments against creating and implementing national curriculum standards, most of these arguments relate to the structural and political issues, and not, necessarily, what is best for the Nation; nor are they sufficiently compelling that we should disregard the notion of exploring the concept. These arguments include the historical separation between the roles of the Federal government and States in education policy, the concept of States rights, and the sense that local control is always best. In fact, without significant changes in law or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, creating mandatory standards or assessments could even be illegal or unconstitutional.

Benefits of National Standards
I agree with my colleague Linda Edwards on this topic, in that national standards could greatly increase the efficiency by which curricula and assessments are developed, by eliminating the obligation of States to carry out this process independently. Costs could be reduced and safeguards could simultaneously be put in place to prevent a monopoly by large publishers to develop curriculum materials. A door could potentially be opened to small publishers who might be able to compete at a national level playing field, rather than forcing small publishers to target particular regional markets and unable to meet the current requirements for adoption in multiple States. Comparisons between States would obviously make more sense, with regards to uniformity in assessments. In addition, it could become easier to compare practices in different regions with a common assessment.

By nationalizing standards, and increasing the degree of efficiency in assessment, there could also be the possibility that we could develop national systems for better assessments. Perhaps we could be looking at more logical longitudinal data, and assessments that go beyond multiple choice.

Goals for National Standards
National standards could serve us best if they set standards that could be considered our collective national goals. The trouble with local control, is that it allows abrogation of responsibility, and potentially relies on inadequate local resources. Education allows for the success of our economy, our innovations in science, medicine, and the arts, and the preparation of our citizens to be contributing members of society and participants in democracy. These are not local or regional issues. By creating comprehensive national educational goals, we would not only be answering the timeless question of what schools are for, but we would also enable the targeting of national resources where they are needed to help regions achieve the goals that are good for the Nation as a whole. Formula grants and competitive grants are nice, but they don’t necessarily meet the true needs of all schools and all children.

Math and Science First
Changing all subjects at once in a short time period would be unwise, both logistically and politically. While the governors are recommending Math and English a la NCLB, I would suggest implementing Math and Science standards first. There are bills already on the books to create national standards in these subjects. There is little (but some) disagreement amongst professionals about the content that should be included in Math and Science, and tremendous political will. Business groups, education professionals, and the scientific community have been issuing recommendations on the need to unify and improve our instruction in these areas both for the benefit of improved college preparation, and for the “competitiveness” or “innovation” agenda; which see a growing need for more competent and creative professionals in technical and scientific fields.

Potential Problems
It may sound un-American for the Federal government to tell you what to teach in your classroom. Yet, our current lack of a true national education policy leaves us in a situation where some regions, some communities, and some states provide curricula to our youth that may be inadequate or misdirected for serving our greater national interest.

I don’t believe that regional differences should necessitate different standards or expectations in most curricular areas. These regional differences may necessitate different approaches, and may require different resources. But to say that the math required in Kansas should be different than California because of regional differences is ridiculous.

Limits of National Standards
With History and Social Sciences, we could get ourselves into serious political and ideological debates. Any attempt at national standards in social sciences would undoubtedly invoke the ire of groups of people; cultural, racial, religious, or otherwise, who would likely protest omission, misrepresentation, or vilification of their group. Any attempt at being all-inclusive and comprehensive would run the risk of being too unwieldy to be viable. If there were a curricular subject for which national standards might be too difficult to implement, it would be History-Social Sciences.

After all, if we learn history well, what are we going to repeat?

Education For A Stronger Tomorrow – Rebranding our Education Law

For three years, I’ve struggled to come up with a new name for the next reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which is currently operating under the oft ridiculed name “No Child Left Behind” and the ridiculous acronym, NCLB. I knew that when this bill was reauthorized, and drastically changed, it would need a new name.

Never, not once, did I have any inspiration that sounded catchy, and gave a sense of purpose and optimism, without sounding impossible or trite. That is, until now. At last, for some reason, I finally came up with one. So here it is:

Education For A Stronger Tomorrow (EFAST)

I’m not alone in attempting to name this bill. There are many suggestions out there, some serious, though most satirical. Some of these can be seen at eduwonk’s contest on the subject: