All Feeds

No Teacher Left Behind?

Scott Bittle — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:51:57 -0500

The No Child Left Behind law, which for good or ill has been the center of American education policy over the past decade, is up for an overhaul. That's the word from the Obama administration, which says a central point will be changing how schools are rated, one of the most controversial parts of the law.
Public Agenda's research shows that teachers are open to many different ways of assessing their work. More than half of teachers, 56 percent, said test scores were a "good' or "excellent" way of measuring teacher effectiveness, but other yardsticks were more popular, such as student engagement (92 percent), how much their own students learn compared with others (72 percent) and feedback from administrators (70 percent).

But there's may be an even more important hurdle here in improving schools, which is that significant numbers of teachers are frustrated with their work. Our Teaching For A Living study found four in 10 teachers "disheartened," struggling with their work environment and their ability to make a difference.

Frustration like that is bound to affect their success with students – and their attitudes about reform. As the nation continues to try and make American schools all they should be, one of the greatest challenges is figuring out whether good leadership and different policies could re-energize these teachers, or whether they'd be better off doing something else.

Load 16 (Clean?) Tons And What Do You Get…

Scott Bittle — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:58:19 -0500

The federal government this week announced plans to push biofuels and "clean coal" technology, in an effort to move forward on energy options even while a more complicated "cap-and-trade" plan stays stalled in Congress. Developing new technology is important to solving our energy problems, but what is really at stake here and what choices do we have?

Americans get half of our electricity from coal, and the pros and cons of it are actually pretty simple. Coal is inexpensive, we have lots of domestic supply, and some 80,000 people work in the industry. On the other hand, coal puts out more greenhouse gases and pollutants than our other options, even other fossil fuels like natural gas and oil. (See our handy chart from Who Turned Out the Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis to compare different energy sources).

So coming up with ways to use coal without producing greenhouse gases could be a breakthrough. But it's not exactly around the corner -- the Obama administration's plan would create five to 10 commercial demonstration projects by 2016, and if they succeed, widespread adoption would be even further off.

That's why it's important for policymakers to focus the energy debate on the fundamental choices we face. Too often we end up arguing over the complexities of a cap-and-trade plan, or the emissions targets needed to control climate change. But to engage the public, the key questions are more basic: what kind of power plants do we need? How should we fuel our cars? These are questions Americans can and should grapple with – and in a world that needs more energy at the same time it needs cleaner energy, the public needs to be part of this debate.

Up To The Limit?

Scott Bittle — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:41:43 -0500

The House voted today to raise the national debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, but by a pretty close vote on what's usually a routine matter. Opponents said the debt has to be brought under control; supporters pointed out that without an increase in the debt limit, the government would end up defaulting on its debt, throwing the world financial markets into chaos. Again.

So if we can't just stop borrowing cold turkey, how do we get a handle on this? The Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States concluded you have to start soon, in next year's budget. (In other words, not the one President Obama just submitted for fiscal year 2011, but the budget after that). And the committee argued the goal should be to control the debt at 60 percent of GDP over the next decade – that would keep it from getting too far out of hand while still allowing the government to fight the recession and do the other things it needs to do.

What Are These Economists Talking About? Deficits And Debts In Plain English

Peiting Chen — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:50:46 -0500

What Are These Economists Talking About?
Deficits And Debts In Plain English

By Ilana E. Straus, Scripps Howard Foundation Wire, Feb. 2010

(AXcess News) Washington - People are barraged by numbers predicting economic success and doom on a daily basis.

Just this week, the Senate voted to allow the national debt to rise to $14.3 trillion, the highest ever. The House is expected to take action next week.

The Congressional Budget Office released a report Tuesday on the state of the economy, leading analysts to come up with varying interpretations.

It's hard to know exactly which numbers to trust, how to make sense of the difference between cloudy economic terms and how to deal with bias.

Here is a basic guide to two of the most common terms that have been thrown around: national deficit and public debt.

National deficit

2010 Estimate: $1.4 trillion - CBO

What it is:

The deficit is the yearlong difference between "what the United States Government takes in from taxes and other revenues" and what the government spends. - U.S. Department of the Treasury.

What that means:

The projected deficit is the highest the U.S. has ever had, meaning the government has either been collecting less money, spending more, or both.

"The high deficits are an outrage" Chris Edwards, an economist at the libertarian CATO Institute in D.C., said. "They are unethical."

Others say the increased spending was necessary.

"It's clearly too much, but that has to be put in the obvious context of the recession," said Andrew Yarrow, vice president and director of Public Agenda's D.C. office. The group generally opposes higher deficits.

"Most would agree that the government had to do something," he said.

Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress, said,
"The current deficit is not a concern. It is very high, but that's mostly a function of the emergency spending that had to happen."

CAP is a progressive group founded by former Clinton administration officials.

The deficit isn't just caused by spending, Linden said. The government has collected considerably less tax revenue this year because people were making less and because the government wanted to stimulate the economy by letting people keep more of their own money, he said.

Public debt

2009 Calculation: $7.6 trillion - CBO

What that means:

The public debt consists of all the deficits of previous years added together. It is all the debt owed by government branches. - U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Public debt is often confused with national debt, an estimate that includes the money different branches of government owe to one another and is therefore considerably higher than public debt. It's the national debt the Senate voted to raise this week.

What that means:

For most of national history, the U.S. didn't have a public debt.

"Other than during the Civil War and the World Wars, the U.S. largely balanced its budget until the late 1960s," Yarrow said.

U.S. public debt has been building up for the last half century.

"It's really the spending that's out of control," Edwards said. Wars over the past couple decades, domestic spending and tax cuts during the Bush years and recent stimulus plans have been expensive, he said. "Both parties are to blame."

Not all say the high debt is a problem.

"Right now the debt is at a manageable level," Linden said.

"It really can't get too much higher" without some risks coming into play, he said.

Lowering debt would mean making some sacrifices.

"In many ways, Americans have really wanted to have it all," Yarrow said.

"They've wanted to have more spending, but they've wanted to pay less in taxes, and that just doesn't add up," he said. "The government has played along with them."

Long-term effects of the public debt and deficits

The public debt "doesn't have any effect in the near term," Linden said. "It's a high public debt, but it's not too much of a burden. The problem is if it continues to rise."

But Yarrow cautioned, "If we do nothing, entitlement programs," including Medicare and Social Security, "will compose all of the budget."

The debt will hit younger workers the hardest, Edwards said.

"There's a huge threat of enormous tax increases for young workers in the future," he said. "The increasing power of the elderly lobby will put pressure on politicians to raise taxes on young workers."‘

Many countries, waiting on the U.S. to pay back loans, are starting to question the value of holding U.S. debt, Yarrow said.

If these countries were to pull money out of U.S. markets, they could cause "severe panics in financial markets," he said.

This debt may be a problem for future generations.

"Money borrowed by the federal government must be paid back by future generations with interest," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said in a press release this week.

"There are a lot of ways this can hit individuals down the road," Yarrow said. "And not too far down the road."

Since debt has increased under both parties, placing the blame on a political party is unhelpful, Yarrow said.

"Debt and deficit have been caused by both Democrats and Republicans," Yarrow said. "They must be solved by Democrats and Republicans working together."

Source: this article is from the Scripps Howard Foundation Wire

The Budget As Board Game

Scott Bittle — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:36:33 -0500

In a torrent of news about President Obama's new budget proposal, two things really stand out to us – and they're probably not the points upon which most of the coverage and commentary will focus.

One point comes from the Wall Street Journal's interactive graphic of the federal budget process, which is something to make you laugh or cry, as you prefer.

This eight-stage, 27-box graphic could be the basis of a board game for particularly wonky kids. But at a moment when everyone in Washington is combing through President Obama's $3.8 trillion budget proposal, with its record $1.6 trillion deficit, it's important to remember just how long and complicated this process is.

That doesn't help the public come to grips with this. Budgets are all about setting priorities, and while this budget proposal tells us what the Obama administration thinks the priorities should be, there's nothing in this long, convoluted process that helps the public sort through options and choices to figure out what their priorities are.

The second point that strikes us comes from the sheer volume of coverage, analyzing the budget proposal from so many angles that it's hard for anyone who's not immersed in the coverage to keep up. (If you want to make a start on it, we'd suggest this roundup of stories from almost every angle in the Washington Post's 44 blog, and of course the Choosing Our Fiscal Future news tracker). No matter what angle you're interested in, somebody's covered it.

But in all the analysis, some of the basics may get passed over too quickly. So it's worth returning to a point that every budget expert knows, but relatively few people outside the government appreciate. The easiest way to tell it is to quote from this section of the president's budget submission, under the heading "The Unsustainable Path" (it's on page 42, if you're determined enough to get that far).

The deficit is projected to fall from its recent peak levels as the economy recovers from the recession and the worldwide financial crisis eases. By the end of the 10-year budget window, the deficit has returned to a lower level, and the debt held by the public is no longer rising rapidly relative to GDP. However, the fiscal position is not sustainable in the long run without further policy changes. Beyond the 10-year budget window, increasing health costs and population aging will place the budget on an unsustainable course unless policy changes are made to address these challenges.

Nearly everybody who studies the federal budget, including the government's own experts, ends up using the same word to describe it: unsustainable. The trends of persistent deficits, rising health care costs, and an aging population means that the federal government will pile up enormous amounts of debt over the next few decades, more than it can handle.

There are ways to avoid this, but the sooner we act, the better. The Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future report suggested four different paths to solve the problem, covering a wide range of philosophical perspectives. The report also posedsix questions to ask about any federal budget, which really helps to put the news coverage in perspective.

When it comes to getting the public engaged in a problem, a complicated process and coverage that skips over the fundamentals is a bad combination. And we absolutely have to get the public involved in this process, because this problem, wonky as it might be, simply can't be solved without them.

Calling the Question on the National Debt

Ruth Wooden — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:06:26 -0500

In the State of the Union speech last night, President Obama said the one of the most thoughtful ways of attacking our budget crisis is to name a bipartisan commission to guide our fiscal future onto a sustainable path, in contrast to the unsustainable path we are on now.

A commission of experts can certainly come up with reasonable suggestions for how to create a sustainable federal budget. But the debate over the national debt and the federal budget isn't just about money, it's about values, and as President Obama said last night, it's also about trust. The federal budget is an expression of our priorities as a country. How we trust our government to spend the taxpayers' money (and who gets taxed) says something about what Americans value, and what we don't.

Budget debates reflect fundamental differences in public values, priorities, and the tradeoffs they're willing to make to accomplish their goals. People hold sharply different values about what they want or need from government, what government can actually deliver, and what role it should play in daily life. These differences in beliefs and interests need to be recognized and reconciled before the government can make long-term budget decisions.

If you judge the United States by its budget, however, you might be forgiven for thinking Americans are a little muddled on key points. As a nation, there's a fundamental mismatch between what our government spends and what takes in, a situation that's going to get worse in the foreseeable future. So far, our political system we've been wanting more from the government than we've been willing to pay for some time.

One of the most crucial points about the Choosing Our Nation's Fiscal Future report is that it calls the question and asks for dialogue on some of the fundamental questions that underlie our budget problems. How big should our government be? What kind of services do we want? How are we going to pay for it? What do we need to do to ensure fairness between older and younger generations?

The Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States didn't take positions on any of these questions. But the committee members felt strongly that we have to recognize that these questions are out there, shaping the decisions the government makes. That's why we devoted an entire chapter of the report to some of the values questions and how they affect the budget, like fairness, economic growth, efficiency, security, and the size of government.

The members also believe that these differing values, in and of themselves, aren't the source of our budget problems. There are a number of ways to put the federal budget on a sustainable path, from widely different philosophical perspectives. We thought the best way of illustrating that was to come up with four alternative paths. Any of them would stabilize the national debt at 60 percent of GDP, our overall goal for eventual, long-term fiscal stability. Each of them approaches the problem differently, but they all get there:

Low spending and revenue This path would allow payroll and income tax rates to remain roughly unchanged, but it would require sharp reductions in the projected growth of health and retirement programs; defense and domestic spending cuts of 20 percent; and no funds for any new programs without additional spending cuts.

Intermediate path 1 This path would raise income and payroll tax rates modestly. It would allow for some growth in health and retirement spending; defense and domestic program cuts of 8 percent; and selected new public investments, such as for the environment and to promote economic growth.

Intermediate path 2 This path would raise income and payroll taxes somewhat higher than with the previous path. Spending growth for health and retirement programs would be slowed, but less than under the other intermediate path; and spending for all other federal responsibilities would be reduced. This path gives higher priority to entitlement programs for the elderly than to other types of government spending.

High spending and revenue This path would require substantially higher taxes. It would maintain the projected growth in Social Security benefits for all future retirees and require smaller reductions over time in the growth of spending for health programs. It would allow spending on all other federal programs to be higher than the level implied by current policies.

Again, the committee isn't endorsing any of these paths. The goal is to show that there are a lot of options for solving the problem, no matter what your political philosophy. That's critical to gaining true public input on solving our budget problems.

Turning our fiscal problems over to a commission doesn't mean the rest of us can sit on our hands. We cannot solve this problem without the public. And the Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States has provided this new commission with a head start on how to engage the public in dialogue around the values choices embedded in any final fiscal plan.

Coming up with specific policy proposals and formulas is the province of the experts. But setting national priorities is emphatically the province of the American public. However we move forward on budget problems, let's remember that the only people who can choose our fiscal future are the same ones who will have to live with the choices: the American people. The Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States called the question, but it's up to the public to provide the answer.

Public Agenda President Ruth Wooden served as a member of the Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States. This blog appeared on the Choosing Our Fiscal Future web site, and you can find out more about the project on Twitter @FiscalFuture and on Facebook.

Live-Tweeting The State Of The Union

Francie Grace — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:43:01 -0500

It was freezing as usual last night in Emporia, Kansas – midway between Wichita and Kansas City, a great case study for the winters for which the Midwest is known. But heat was in evidence as students all over campus at Emporia State University logged on to Twitter to listen, comment and discuss the State of the Union address and the GOP response – viewed from the prism of the federal budget deficit and national debt.

The live chat (click here to take a look at the students' comments), moderated by Public Agenda on behalf of @FacingUp, was nonpartisan and devoid of political name-calling, with passion instead attaching itself to the issues: the size of the deficit and debt, the politicians' and students' own proposals, and the degree to which each might help the nation get on a more solid fiscal footing.

Emporia's economics students, led by Professor Rob Catlett, have been studying the problem as participants in the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances nonpartisan curriculum on the nation's fiscal future. We're pleased to announce that three of them are among the winners of the final round of the Facing Up contest for essays relating to the deficit and debt crisis and what should be done about it.

And here's the official winner list:

Best Multimedia Essay By A College Student

"It's Up To Us" by Kelsey Ryan, Shane Wilson, & Kellen Jenkins of Emporia State (colleagues at The Bulletin, ESU's award-winning newspaper, seen here together celebrating a job well-done)

Best Written Essay By A College Student

"Means-Testing Social Security" by Zachary Skaggs of American University, in Washington, D.C. (an enthusiastic student of economics, currently prepping for med school, with an understandable strong interest in health care reform and cost control, among other things)

Congratulations to all! And thanks to everyone who entered – the discussion is one of the most important parts of our Students Face Up program (available free of charge thanks to a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation) to help students and other concerned citizens get involved in making choices to build a better future.

Each prize is worth $500 (ESU's winners will have to split their prize three ways). But that's not the only take-away for our winners, who plan to continue raising the consciousness of other Americans on this issue, especially those in their own generation, who have a lot at stake as the national debt clock zooms forward.

An Interactive State Of The Union

Francie Grace — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:49:52 -0500

Your thoughts won't flash on the U.S. Capitol podium, but this year's State of the Union address (9 p.m. ET, on most TV networks, many radio outlets, and live on the web and the iPhone) will be different.

As soon as President Obama begins delivering his report on the condition of this country and his proposals for what should be done to face our most urgent problems, YouTube will begin accepting videos with follow-up questions for the president, whose comments are expected to include the formation of a commission on the federal budget deficit (for more on that, click here).

Folks who log onto the Citizen Tube page will also be able to vote on questions for the president, who will answer some of them next week in a live online event.

But you don't have to go on YouTube to have a real time interactive experience with the State of the Union. Log onto Twitter during the president's speech, the Republican response, or afterwards, and if you include the hashtag #FiscalFuture in your message, your comments on the federal budget deficit and national debt will be part of the ongoing conversation.

You can view the conversation live by clicking on #FiscalFuture in your own message or elsewhere, or you can go to search.Twitter.com and search for #Fiscal Future.

Our discussion is nonpartisan, so please try to stick to the subject of the problem and potential solutions, and play nice. We hope to see you there!

Convergence and Contradictions in Teachers' Perceptions of Policy Reform Ideas

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:18:17 -0500

Educational reformers of all stripes have focused tremendous energy on thinking of ways to identify effective teachers and in turn recruit, retain, compensate, and support them. But what do teachers think of their ideas?

Research by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates suggests that what teachers think are good indicators of effectiveness—and what they think will make them more effective—are not always aligned with current priorities in education policy.

Although education policy reform has focused on dramatic changes to teacher evaluation and compensation, our findings suggest that these reform ideas are not the most popular among teachers. This study explores the attitudes of all teachers toward how they would measure effectiveness, examines how they perceive themselves to be effective relative to their teaching conditions, and indicates what they believe will improve overall teacher effectiveness.

The full report, which has implications for both policymakers and teachers who want to influence policy, is available at RetainingTeacherTalent.org. This report is Part III of the Retaining Teacher Talent nationwide study Convergence and Contradictions in Teachers’ Perceptions of Policy Reform Ideas. Also available online: Part I, Teaching For A Living; and Part II, Supporting Teacher Talent.

What Makes Teachers More Effective In The Classroom?

Francie Grace — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:45:01 -0500

Educational reformers have focused a lot of energy on thinking of ways to identify effective teachers and in turn recruit, retain, compensate, and support them. But what do teachers think of their ideas? Research by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates suggests that what teachers think are good indicators of effectiveness—and what they think will make them more effective—are not always aligned with current priorities in education policy. Read more about this report, part three in the Retaining Teacher Talent series of reports, which have implications for both policymakers and teachers who want to influence policy.

Heading for a Commission?

Scott Bittle — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:39:27 -0500

A bipartisan commission of some kind to make recommendations on reducing the deficit and controlling the national debt is looking more and more likely. The Senate is supposed to vote on the idea Tuesday, but if that fails, reports say President Obama will announce he'll appoint a panel by executive order in the State of the Union speech. Meanwhile, while it isn't clear how the public will fit into the commission process, what is clear, in the latest the latest Pew Research Center survey, is that public concern over the deficit is both rising and relatively bipartisan.

New Analysis Suggests Teachers' Voices Do Not Have A Strong Influence On The Policy Agenda

Peiting Chen — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:27:04 -0500

New Analysis Suggests Teachers' Voices Do Not Have A Strong Influence On The Policy Agenda

Research from Learning Point Associates and Public Agenda

Full report available at RetainingTeacherTalent.org

See earlier reports in this series: Teaching for a Living and Supporting Teacher Talent

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 26, 2010) — Educational reformers of all stripes have focused tremendous energy on thinking of ways to identify effective teachers and in turn recruit, retain, compensate and support them. But what do teachers think of their ideas? The Retaining Teacher Talent study, a nationwide study conducted by Learning Point Associates and Public Agenda suggests that what teachers think are good indicators of effectiveness—and what they think will make them more effective—are not always aligned with current priorities in education policy.

This third release of data from the Retaining Teacher Talent study, Convergence and Contradictions in Teachers' Perceptions of Policy Reform Ideas, seeks to draw teachers into the debate, to bring nuance and experience to the conversation. This report describes the implications of the results of the nationwide survey for policymakers and teachers who want to influence policy.

“As we enter this new decade, teachers stand at the center of this policy vortex,” said Sabrina Laine, Ph.D., chief program officer for educator effectiveness at Learning Point Associates. "Democratizing the national policy conversation by getting teachers involved provides a bridge between policy and practice. Ultimately, grounding this debate with the voices of experience and evidence is of critical importance. The success of these reforms rests in large part on the support of those who will be most directly affected—teachers.”

“There’s a conventional wisdom that teachers uniformly resist the idea of measuring teacher effectiveness, but in fact, teachers are open to a number of different ways of doing it, including looking at how much their own students learn compared to other students. And most teachers agree that making it easier to take ineffective teachers out of the classroom would improve education,” said Jean Johnson, director of Education Insights at Public Agenda. “It’s way past time to get teachers themselves involved in these crucial discussions about how to judge teacher effectiveness.”

Although education policy reform has focused on dramatic changes to teacher evaluation and compensation, this report suggests that these reform ideas are not the most popular among teachers. This study explores the attitudes of all teachers toward how they would measure effectiveness, examines how they perceive themselves to be effective relative to their teaching conditions and indicates what they believe will improve overall teacher effectiveness.

Top findings include the following:

1. The majority of teachers agree on four possible ways to judge teacher performance: Nearly all teachers (92 percent) rated the level of student interest and engagement as an excellent or good indicator of teacher effectiveness. Teachers also gave excellent or good ratings to: how much their own students learn compared with other students (72 percent); feedback from principals and administrators (70 percent) and how well students perform on district’s standardized tests (56 percent). At the same time, fewer teachers (12 percent) gave standardized tests the top rating than they gave any of the other measures of effectiveness.

2. Teachers with less experience in the classroom are more likely to have concerns about using standardized test scores to measure their performance. Although majorities of teachers said that standardized tests are good or excellent indicators of teacher effectiveness, less experienced teachers were more divided: Half of all teachers with less than five years of experience gave this assessment a fair or poor rating, compared with just 32 percent of teachers with more than 20 years of experience.

3. Teachers prefer having a principal who frequently observes their classroom and gives detailed feedback. A majority of teachers indicated that they want their principals to be involved (63 percent). As national education policy begins to extend measuring effectiveness to principals, teachers underscored the importance of strong principals to support their success in the classroom.

4. Teachers indicate that class size reduction and addressing student discipline would improve their overall effectiveness. Although many policy reform experts have prioritized teacher evaluation, preparation, and compensation and reward, the majority of teachers rank class size reduction (66 percent) and addressing student discipline (68 percent) as the most important factors in improving their overall effectiveness.

As part of the survey analysis, the report compares teachers who were most confident about their effectiveness in the classroom (33 percent of the sample) with those who are less sure (66 percent). Among other differences noted in the report, the self-perceived effective teachers were more likely to report better working conditions in their schools and to give better ratings to their principal for providing instructional feedback.

Policymakers have proposed and adopted various reform ideas to improve teacher effectiveness. In addition to the importance of engaging teachers in education reform, this report highlights the continued lack of solid, replicated empirical evidence on which to base policy decisions. This dearth of evidence hinders effective policymaking and ensures that the debate will continue.

Convergence and Contradictions in Teachers' Perceptions of Policy Reform Ideas is based on six focus group interviews conducted throughout the country as well as a national, random-sample survey of 890 public school teachers conducted in spring and summer 2009, including an oversample of 241 teachers aged 32 and under. The researchers used a factor analysis and established criteria of teacher effectiveness to compare the views of those who are more confident about their teaching with those who are less sure of their impact on their students. The questions used to define this group are available in the report at www.RetainingTeacherTalent.org. The work was underwritten by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Joyce Foundation.

A discussion of this report's methodology, as well as a full complement of research on Retaining Teacher Talent—including a video capturing the voices of Gen Y teachers—can be found on the new comprehensive website (www.RetainingTeacherTalent.org).

Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public’s voice into crucial policy debates.

Learning Point Associates is a nationally recognized, nonprofit education research and consulting organization with 25 years of experience working with educators and policymakers to transform education systems and student learning. Our reputation is built on a solid foundation of designing and conducting rigorous and relevant education research and evaluations; developing and delivering tools, services, and resources targeted at pressing education issues; and analyzing and synthesizing education policy trends and practices. Our professional staff of 150 continues to grow as our work expands both nationally and internationally. Our offices are located in Chicago, Illinois; Washington, D.C.; Naperville, Illinois; and New York. For more information, please visit http://www.learningpt.org.

Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Jeff Raikes and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to protect the natural environment of the Great Lakes, to reduce poverty and violence in the region, and to ensure that its people have access to good schools, decent jobs, and a diverse and thriving culture. We are especially interested in improving public policies, because public systems such as education and welfare directly affect the lives of so many people, and because public policies help shape private sector decisions about jobs, the environment, and the health of our communities. To ensure that public policies truly reflect public rather than private interests, we support efforts to reform the system of financing election campaigns.

Public Agenda Energy Book Authors On PBS This Weekend

Francie Grace — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:48:51 -0500

What do citizens really need to know about energy and climate change? What lessons for making energy policy can be found in the movies Groundhog Day, Mad Max: The Road Warrior, Soylent Green and Apollo 13? And most importantly, how can we figure out which fuels we should pursue, which we should use less, and how we should otherwise change our ways to create a more environmentally and economically sustainable present and future?

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, authors of Who Turned Out the Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, have answers to all these questions and more, in their book and in an interview on PBS' Bill Moyers Journal to be aired Friday, Jan. 22, and Sunday, Jan. 24 (and perhaps also at a different time in your area: check this link for the schedule in your neck of the woods).

So tune in, or record it – and if you've got questions about energy or climate change, feel free to post them or e-mail Jean and Scott – we'd love to hear from you as we all try to move forward on these critical issues. The way we power the things we like to do on this earth is one of those things that really can't be changed without the participation and consent of the public, and it's a sure thing that nothing's going to change for the better unless people learn more about the choices we have – as individuals, as companies, and as a nation – and the pros and cons of each of them.

Budget Commissions, Tough Options, and the Public

Scott Bittle — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:59:58 -0500

The idea of a bipartisan commission to draft a plan to get the federal budget on a sound footing has been embraced by President Obama and Congressional leaders, and will likely be a major point in next week's State of the Union speech. Under the plan, a panel named by the White House and leaders of both parties would come up with proposals by December to close the deficit and control the debt. As part of the deal, Congressional leaders promise they would act on the commission plan quickly.

You're going to hear lots of furious debate over whether this is a good idea or not (you can sample some of the criticism from the left and the right on this). There's one big question that has yet to be answered, however: how does the public factor into this?

We can't solve our long-term fiscal problems without engaging the public. Most of the options boil down to spending cuts or tax increases, and very likely a combination of both. None of them can be implemented without public support. Plus, how the federal government raises and spends money is an expression of what is important to us as a society. If we're going to be setting priorities – and that's a crucial part of this process – the public's voice needs to be heard.

There are ways of getting the public involved in working through the options here. For more on putting our fiscal house in order, have a look at the Our Fiscal Future web site, or visit Fiscal Future on Twitter and Facebook. The Six Questions to Ask About the Federal Budget is a good starting point. You can also find out more about the budget and choices for dealing with it at FacingUp.org.

Resources For Helping Quake Victims In Haiti

Francie Grace — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:03:21 -0500

The death toll of the 7.0 earthquake in Haiti is estimated at 200,000 and the suffering of the survivors, many struggling with injuries and the need for food, water and shelter, continues to be enormous. U.S. troops (at right: distributing food and water in Port Au Prince) are a part of a worldwide outpouring of help for the quake victims and the Caribbean nation as it faces both the immediate emergency and the need to rebuild. If you'd like to help, one good resource is the Network for Good, which has a list of links to charities and other nonprofits working to help the people of Haiti.

Six Questions to Ask About the Federal Budget

Scott Bittle — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:56:27 -0500

One of the biggest problems in getting Americans engaged on the nation's fiscal challenges is that the problem is so hard for most people to get their arms around. The numbers are so huge, the issues so arcane and the problems so daunting that people may get angry about it, but have no idea how to grab onto it.

That's what makes the approach of the Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States interesting. Their Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future report, issued by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) today, is about how to control our national debt, already past $12 trillion and threatening to rise to staggering (and dangerous) proportions. Public Agenda is part of the Choosing Our Fiscal Future project with NAPA, working to build a network of citizens who'll get involved in the discussion and work on solutions.

The nonpartisan committee laid out a goal for a sustainable debt level (keeping it to 60 percent of gross domestic product), four alternative paths for reaching the goal, and six basic questions to ask about any federal budget. The committee argues that if the answers to these questions are "yes," we're at least making progress.

Here are the questions, taken directly from the report. Consider whether the federal budget meets them now – and more importantly, keep them in mind as new budgets are proposed.

Does the proposed budget include policy actions that start to reduce the deficit in the near future in order to reduce short-term borrowing and long-term interest costs?

Does the proposed budget put the government on a path to reduce the federal debt within a decade to a sustainable percentage of GDP? Given the fiscal outlook and the committee’s analysis of the many factors that affect economic outcomes, the committee believes that the lowest ratio that is economically manageable within a decade, as well as practical and politically feasible, is 60 percent.

Does the proposed budget align revenues and spending closely over the long term?

Does the proposed budget restrain health care cost growth and introduce changes now in the major entitlement programs and in other spending and tax policies that will have cumulative beneficial fiscal effects over time?

Does the budget include spending and revenue policies that are cost-effective and promote more efficient use of resources in both the public and private sectors?

Does the federal budget reflect a realistic assessment of the fiscal problems facing state and local governments?

This gives the public something they haven't had before: a set of standards for a "good" budget, or at least as good as it can be given the tremendous fiscal challenges we face. If we give the public more tools to measure the problem, and grapple with real solutions, we can get ahead of this challenge – while there's still time.

To find out more, and to become part of the citizen network working on this issue, visit the Choosing Our Fiscal Future web site, become a Facebook fan, or follow us on Twitter @FiscalFuture.

Our Fiscal Future

Francie Grace — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:14:12 -0500

What should we do about the national debt? Public Agenda is part of a new effort to get citizens working together on this problem, which starts with Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future, a new report from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration. The national debt, at $12 trillion and rising, is a risk to our future but can be solved, if we look at the choices we face, discuss their pros and cons, and get together on creating a more sustainable policy. The just-released Our Fiscal Future report contains recommendations on guidelines to consider as we discuss solutions. To learn more and join the discussion, see OurFiscalFuture.org and the Our Fiscal Future Facebook page, and follow the @FiscalFuture Twitter feed.

Our 'posterity deficit'

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:23:33 -0500

Reprinted from The Baltimore Sun

By Andrew L. Yarrow

Most people are not much concerned with what lies ahead for the world beyond their lifetimes. Yet, decisions we make today on questions like the environment and spending will have far-ranging implications on the lives of future generations -- for better or worse.

So, we need a new posterity ethic. The leading edge of such a movement may be emerging, and from a place we'd least expect: the vast baby boom population moving into their 50s and 60s. A growing number are already fashioning a new vision of how Americans in later life can contribute to the nation and the world. And, in light of this month's Conference Board study revealing widespread job dissatisfaction, this also can be a route to greater meaning in work.

Despite the popular perception of boomers as self-obsessed, this budding recognition of posterity squares with an essential aspect of growing older. Psychologist Erik Erikson wrote half a century ago about eight stages of life, with the seventh and eighth stages (mid to late adulthood) as times of "generativity vs. stagnation" and "integrity vs. despair." These, he argued, are times when people naturally think of "giving back" and "contributing"; to be completely caught up in the present is psychologically maladaptive.

In the last century, Americans' life expectancy has increased by 30 years. Soon, nearly 80 million boomers will have to think about a third, long phase of their lives. It's already clear that they are abandoning notions of "golden years" and golf courses and are looking for new ways to earn money, find personal meaning and have an impact on the world. They are looking for 10- and 20-year life plans.

Many have already shifted to new, "encore" careers focused on the well-being of future generations. John Armstrong, a third-generation West Point graduate, went from the Army to Hewlett-Packard, before joining the Peace Corps. After another stint at HP, his passion to fight climate change and improve poor children's lives led him to a new calling working for an environmental education group.

Catalino Tapia, a first-generation American inspired by his son's graduation from Berkeley, organized other Latino gardeners to create the Bay Area Gardeners Foundation. They've raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to send Latino youth to college. And then there's Jerry Conover in Denver, another member of this committed cadre of posterity pioneers, who organized older, more well-to-do citizens to donate their Social Security checks specifically to enhance preschool education.

This vanguard is demonstrating what's possible, but many more say that they would like to move in this direction. One recent study shows that half of boomers are drawn to ideas like these but don't know how to make them happen.

They need more than exhortation. They need better bridges to take them from aspiration to action and policies that help them navigate this difficult transition in a labor market generally averse to hiring older workers.

Employers could follow the lead of IBM, which launched the Transition to Teaching program to help its senior engineers and technicians shift into math and science teaching, or HP, which helped pilot the Encore Fellowship, enabling early retirees to launch second careers with youth or environmental organizations. At the same time, community colleges are developing relatively quick, convenient, and inexpensive ways for those who want to go back to school to become teachers or nurses or to work in the green-collar sector.

Public policy also could support this. A provision in the Serve America Act would create internships for "grown-ups." Just as we have developed many policies for the elderly, why not craft a Third Age Bill -- based on the French concept of the "troisieme age" -- helping to nurture and expand opportunities for those over 55 to transition to fulfilling careers that improve the well-being of future generations? This could include support for educational efforts, waiving the payroll tax and providing social entrepreneurship or posterity tax credits for those working beyond the normal retirement age.

With 10,000 boomers turning 60 every day, this tidal wave of talent could foster a new cultural paradigm focusing on what's good for the long haul. More than half of those over 50 worry that they are leaving the world worse off for future generations, according to a recent AARP study. This unprecedented fear, together with a sense that this may be the boomers' legacy if they don't hurry up to lay the groundwork for a better future, may well motivate this generation to be pioneers of a new posterity ethic.

In an interview shortly before his death, Erikson acknowledged that he was deeply troubled by how society neglects the well-being of future generations. As he said, ultimately, "I am what survives of me." There could be no better benediction for a posterity ethic -- and no better time for this to captivate the nation.

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda and an adjunct history professor at American University, is the author of the forthcoming book, "Measuring America." His e-mail is ayarrow@publicagenda.org. Marc Freedman is founder and CEO of Civic Ventures, a think tank on boomers, work and social purpose, and the author of "Encore: Finding Work That Matters in the Second Half of Life." For more information, go to Encore.org.

Facing a Choice in California

Scott Bittle — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:52:05 -0500

A lot of people have been watching the California fiscal crisis nervously, wondering what it could mean for other cash-strapped states and even the federal government. This week we got a glimmer of what it might mean: putting choices before the public.

In his State of the State address Wednesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put forth a plan to cut spending on state prisons and shift the money to higher education. Not only that, but he also proposed a constitutional amendment to ensure that the percentage the state spends on prisons never exceeds spending on higher education. Like nearly everything else in California, this would have to go before the voters in a referendum.

Whatever the merits of the idea – and its prospects for actually becoming law – Schwarzenegger's proposal does something that happens too rarely in politics: putting two different priorities on the table, effectively saying to the public: "Pick one. Colleges are important; so are prisons, but there's only so much money to go around, with California facing another $20 billion deficit this year. I choose colleges. Which do you prefer?"

The idea of choice, of helping the public decide between competing public priorities, is central to public engagement. Under the right conditions, people can and do weigh alternatives and make sound judgments between options. We've seen that in public engagement projects all around the country, on all kinds of topics.

Still, there are a lot of complicated tradeoffs here, and it's not clear whether Californians will get much help figuring them out. There are serious questions about how to cut prison spending and whether privatizing them (Schwarzenegger's preferred option) is a good idea, and about the efficiency of the higher education system. Critics are already raising doubts about whether California needs any more locked-in, voter-mandated programs in a state budget that's already full of them.

Now that Schwarzenegger has put the choice on the table, the next question for leaders, advocates and the media ought to be: what do Californians need to know in order to make it wisely? What are the key facts about colleges, prisons, and the state budget? What are the pros and cons of each path?

And make no doubt about it, there will be pros and cons on both sides. There always are. People can deal with that – if you give them a chance as well as a choice.

Town Halls: Real Democracy or Advocacy Central?

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:17:46 -0500

By Ruth A. Wooden and Andrew L. Yarrow

A version of this story was previously published in an Op Ed in The Baltimore Sun.

Public engagement can provide a road back to Thomas Jefferson's wise and practical vision for self-government. Photo: USA.gov

December 21, 2009 - - Thomas Jefferson called them the "wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government." Hardly faint praise from one of the fathers of American democracy. So, what was he talking about? The town hall meeting.

Fast forward 200 years to Dartmouth, Mass., where a "town hall" on health care reform finds a woman calling President Barack Obama's position "Nazi policy." Amusingly, aptly, but not very cordially, Rep. Barney Frank responds: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

This incident and many others during recent "town halls" are a far cry from what Jefferson or his Colonial forbearers conceived of as a town hall meeting - or, for that matter, what is practiced today in Dartmouth, Mass., where citizens still have a chance to discuss and vote on community affairs in town halls twice a year.

What happened? How did we go from this brilliant concept of participatory, respectful democracy that complements representative democracy to circumstances where, too often, only the most politically charged zealots show up, and they spend much of their time shouting at each other?

Have bad manners become so pervasive in our culture? Or have town halls been hijacked by those with specific agendas and the loudest voices, with little interest in finding common ground or, more importantly, pragmatic solutions to a problem?

Commentators from David Riesman to Robert Putnam have decried the growth of apathy and disengagement, or what the German scholar Jurgen Habermas called the decline of "the public sphere." How does the U.S., a vast country of 310 million people with many points of view, foster a climate where people can gather to address complex issues in constructive ways?

Recent "town halls" have hardly been apathetic. Vocal cords get exercised, to be sure, by the cadre of vehement, unyielding ideologues who show up to such events, but rarely are solutions to real problems found this way. Passionate advocacy certainly has its place, but it can't be the only means or opportunity for citizens to grapple with tough national or local issues.

A packed town meeting with President Obama, at the University of New Orleans, Oct. 15, 2009.

We need to look at ways to achieve a better balance between advocacy for a specific position and pragmatic dialogue if we are to devise solutions that most people can embrace. In this way, we can move forward and tackle the next problem rather than ending up in total gridlock.

In contrast to the hostile histrionics at pseudo-town halls and on TV talk shows, in recent years a new movement has emerged to create more meaningful opportunities to engage in public life and get past the gridlock. The push for a different kind of public engagement comes both from citizens demanding genuine opportunities for participation and input and from local leaders who, faced with making difficult decisions, want to recruit citizens as partners in problem-solving.

This movement, called "public engagement" or "deliberative democracy," offers citizens a space free from the overweening influence of partisan special interests. It enables them to work through the trade-offs and tough choices involved in addressing difficult and complex issues, ranging from how to better educate children in a community to how the nation can dig its way out of its deep fiscal problems. This model creates opportunities for smaller group dialogues than the spectacle-like "town halls."

For example, in the Achieving the Dream initiative on community college student success numerous colleges have worked with community partners to host carefully designed, problem-solving forums with up to 150 students, community members, faculty, and staff to explore obstacles to student success, solutions, and how people can work together to make positive changes. These exercises in community engagement and collaborative problem-solving have led to new institutional practices and college-community partnerships aimed at improving student outcomes.

Politicians or others in positions of power don't lead such groups, but they participate with their fellow citizens. Participants are given basic information about different viewpoints and policy options. They have access to experts who can answer questions. And they are assured that intermediaries will convey the results of their deliberations to their leaders.

Contentious issues can be approached through public engagement methods seeking common ground. Above: a participant in a Worcester, Mass., dialogue between young people concerned about the budget deficit's impact on the future and older Americans concerns about Social Security and Medicare benefits. (Photo: Robert Israelian)

Such an approach can help cast aside the three "A's" - advocacy, anger and apathy - and change the relationship between leaders and the public, as well as among people with different ideologies. Most people crave the chance to discuss issues without spin, manipulation and hostility. Aside from being empowered as active citizens, people generally like meeting new people - including politicians - even those with whom they disagree. They also like having the opportunity to voice their opinions and, most importantly, helping solve problems facing their communities and the nation. In short, they like small-scale, civil, nonpartisan dialogues that are a world away from angry "town halls" and are closer to Jefferson's wise and practical vision for participatory self-government.

Ruth A. Wooden is president of Public Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and public engagement organization. In addition to serving on many nonprofit boards, before assuming her position in 2003 was executive vice president of Porter Novelli and president of the Advertising Council. Her email is rwooden@publicagenda.org.

Andrew L. Yarrow is vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda and an adjunct history professor at American University. He is the author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility" and the forthcoming book "Measuring America." His e-mail is ayarrow@publicagenda.org.

The Missing Health Reform Rx: Personal Responsibility

Francie Grace — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:43:50 -0500

There's something missing, argues legal reform advocate and Public Agenda board member Philip K. Howard, when it comes to the current effort at health care reform. Speaking at our Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, and again in an op ed piece for the New York Daily News, Howard argues that the only way America can afford universal care is to focus public resources by containing costs. Howard has some experience in innovations to reduce one of those costs, as founder of Common Good, a legal reform coalition which is involved in a test of arbitration-based health courts to replace the current malpractice system.

Town Halls: Real Democracy or Advocacy Central?

Francie Grace — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:51:41 -0500

Thomas Jefferson called them the "wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government." He was talking about town hall meetings, which can rise to the potential of that early ideal of citizen engagement and participation, but can also devolve into a less likely forum for listening, bridging interests and developing solutions. Given the serious issues we face as a nation, we'd like to remind citizens of the tools of public engagement: a nonpartisan way to work through public policy trade-offs and tough choices. To learn more, see our commentary by Ruth A. Wooden and Andrew L. Yarrow, which first appeared in the Baltimore Sun.

Town Halls: Real Democracy or Advocacy Central?

Francie Grace — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:54:29 -0500

By Ruth A. Wooden and Andrew L. Yarrow

A version of this story was previously published in an Op Ed in The Baltimore Sun.

Public engagement can provide a road back to Thomas Jefferson's wise and practical vision for self-government. Photo: USA.gov

A packed town meeting with President Obama, at the University of New Orleans, Oct. 15, 2009.

Health Care Reform Priorities

Allison Rizzolo — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:19:54 -0500

Philip K. Howard (left), founder of the Common Good legal reform coalition and a board member of Public Agenda, seen here at the December 2009 Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, fielding questions from the audience and event moderator Robert Siegel of National Public Radio.

As the dogfight over health care reform moves toward an uncertain result, we were privileged to have the opportunity to hash out some of the issues at the most recent Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, where our speaker was Philip K. Howard, a leader of the legal reform movement who has a unique perspective to offer on the problem.

Howard is an attorney who is a founder of the Common Good legal reform coalition, author of "Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans from Too Much Law," a member of the Public Agenda board, and a major advocate of malpractice reform. Common Good and the Harvard School of Public Health, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is involved in a pilot project to test health courts – similar to the workmen's compensation system – using arbitration to resolve malpractice claims.

So Howard, while optimistic that the system being tested in the pilot project would do a better job of holding doctors accountable and delivering compensation to more patients, does not think this change alone would solve the health care reform problem. "It's important to have a system that provides health care for everyone - but it's still not a free good," says Howard. "How do we balance our need to provide health care with all our other important goals?"

He believes the health care system has become a mass of new laws and rules layered on top of old laws and rules - none ever really going away - so complex a result that no one knows it all and most can only just keep doing whatever was done the day before.

Asked by National Public Radio's Robert Siegel, moderator of the event, what he'd do if he were a tie-breaking Senator when the (still-evolving) legislation comes up for a vote, Howard said that's a tough call. But, he said, he'd probably vote for it, and use it as a pulpit to say that the agenda going forward must be cost control as number one, with universal care also being very important. He says he'd then build a coalition to support and work for those priorities.

Is this health care legislation then, more of a starting point than an outcome?

"Passing it, in fact, will provide some moral persuasion and an opportunity" to move forward, suggests George E. Thibault, M.D., one of the guests discussing the issue during the Policy Breakfast question and answer session. "It's going to set us [the country] back if we don't get it passed," said Thibault, president of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, which works for improved education and collaboration among health care professionals, as well as educational strategies to expand access to health care. "We're more likely to do the hard work if we do."

The missing health reform Rx: personal responsibility

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:24:07 -0500

by Public Agenda board member Philip K. Howard, New York Daily News

There's something missing, argues legal reform advocate and Public Agenda board member Philip K. Howard, when it comes to the current effort at health care reform. In this New York Daily News op ed piece, The missing health reform Rx: personal responsibility, Howard argues that the only way America can afford universal care is to focus public resources by containing costs.

U.N. Chief: Copenhagen Deal Is "Just The Beginning"

Francie Grace — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:19:07 -0500

Delegates have "agreed to recognize" a compromise deal that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says "is just the beginning" of a process to craft a binding pact to reduce emissions. The agreement includes both $30 billion in pledges for developing nations and a method for verifying greenhouse gas reductions. It has its critics, including Oxfam's Jeremy Hobbs, who calls it a "triumph of spin over substance." Public involvement in our energy choices is essential for real change; stay on top of the issues with the Who Turned Out The Lights energy site and our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Who Turned Out the Lights? - Interviews & Book Reviews

Peiting Chen — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:04:31 -0500

Interviews & Book Reviews

David M. Kinchen, Basil & Spice: Views On Life, Dec. 15, 2009

Karen St. John, Veterans Today, December 14, 2009

Scott Bittle interview, KNews Conversations, KNews FM 94.3, Palm Springs, Dec. 2, 2009

Mark Lamendola, MindConnection.com, December 2009

Rheta Van Winkle, BookLoons Reviews, Dec. 10, 2009

Jean Johnson interview, Jan Mickelson Show, WHO-AM, Des Moines, Iowa, Nov. 19, 2009

Alan Caruba, Bookviews, December 2009

Joe Hennager, Blue Planet Green Living, Nov. 4, 2009

Helen Gallagher, Blogcritics Books, Nov. 1, 2009

Regis Schilken, Blogcritics Books, Oct. 23, 2009

SEE PRESS RELEASE

SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW

Journalists, policymakers and others with inquiries about the book or requests for interviews with the authors should contact Melissa Feldsher, Public Agenda communications manager, at mfeldsher@publicagenda.org or by phone at 212-686-6610, extension 50.

Send questions and comments to: WhoTurnedOutTheLights@publicagenda.org.

Energy Book Blog

Peiting Chen — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:31:11 -0500

Lights On!

We've been spending a lot of time living with the problems of energy and climate change, and these blog posts are our way of asking the questions that must be answered, and making sense of the ideas being debated on how to fuel the future. Read on, buy the book, and join in with your comments – because no matter what formula's adopted, it won't be real unless we all work together.

Load 16 (Clean?) Tons And What Do You Get, by Scott Bittle, Public Agenda, Feb. 4, 2010

China as the Global Warming Bridezilla - - and America's Handy Excuse for Dawdling, by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, PowerHomeBiz.com, Dec. 17, 2009

Three Flawed Ideas That Could Mean A Cold Homecoming From Copenhagen, by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, smartbooks.com, December 2009

"How To Make The Fate Of The Planet Boring," by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Huffington Post, Dec. 14, 2009

The Real Danger Of "Climategate" by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Public Agenda, Dec. 7, 2009

Homer Simpson & America's Energy Problem by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Washington Post, Dec. 4, 2009

Will A Delay On The Climate Treaty Be Time Well-Spent? by Scott Bittle, Public Agenda, Nov. 16, 2009

Enough With the Global Warming Graphics, Get to the Choices by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Huffington Post, Nov. 12, 2009

Choices For The Future by Scott Bittle, Public Agenda, Nov. 11, 2009

The Energy Debate We Should Be Having by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Forbes.com, Nov. 10, 2009

The Best Idea Yet On Climate Change by Scott Bittle, Public Agenda, Nov. 2, 2009

The Great Energy Debate Pop Quiz, by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Blogspot.com, November 2, 2009

Where are the Swing Voters on the Climate Bill? by Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson, 800ceoread, Oct. 28, 2009

Even If They're Right, the Superfreakonomics Guys Only Have Half An Answer by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Huffington Post, Oct. 28, 2009

Will America's Short-Term Memory Loss Kill the Climate Bill? by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Informed Consent, Oct. 28, 2009

The Smart Approach to a Smart Grid by Scott Bittle, Public Agenda, Oct. 27, 2009

The Number That Matters Most For Climate Change, by Scott Bittle, Public Agenda, Oct. 26, 2009

The Walls Come Tumbling Down: Is Stonewalling Finally Over on Energy?, by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Huffington Post, Oct. 20, 2009

The Moviegoer's Guide To The Energy Crisis," by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Blue Planet Green Living, Oct. 9, 2009

"Climate Change: Making Anxiety An Asset," by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Huffington Post, Sept. 25, 2009

"Does Delay Mean Disaster? Depends" by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, Huffington Post, Sept. 19, 2009

With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them Commentary and Coverage

Peiting Chen — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:02:36 -0500

Students lacking services that support completion by Hilary Pennington

Study Sheds Light on Students Leaving College Early, New York Times, Dec. 9, 2009

Why kids don't finish college: Work and family challenges, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 9, 2009

Majority of college dropouts cite financial struggles as main cause, Washington Post, Dec.9, 2009

Why Do Students Drop Out? Because They Must Work at Jobs Too, Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 9, 2009

Should Your Kids Pay for College Themselves?, U.S. News, Dec. 11, 2009

For 1 student, a long path to college degree, Associated Press, Dec. 11, 2009

Why many college dropouts say they left: the need to work, Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 10, 2009

Choosing between college and food, Chron.com, Dec. 9, 2009

The college dropout: Why students leave school, College News, Dec. 9, 2009

Survey: Work and family responsibility behind college dropout rate, The Hill's Congress Blog, Dec. 10, 2009

Main Reason for Dropping Out of College? Money, All Gov, Dec. 11, 2009

Bloated college costs hurt the poor, Educational Watch International, Dec. 11, 2009

Students that pay as they go more likely to dropout of college, STL Today, Dec. 10, 2009

Survey Gets to the Root of College Drop-Out Dilemma, Top Colleges Blog, Dec. 10, 2009

College Dropouts Cite Low Money and High Stress, Democratic Underground, Dec. 10, 2009

Myths and Realities Of College Completion: A Report from Public Agenda, Student Lending Analytics Blog, Dec. 9, 2009

Money is top reason students leave college, survey finds, SunSentinel, Dec. 9, 2009

National Survey Finds Work, Family Responsibilities Fueling Low College Completion Rates, Docuticker, Dec. 9, 2009

With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them, Creysena, Dec. 10, 2009

Interview of "With Their Whole Lives Ahead Of Them" researcher Jonathan Rochkind, Gil Gross Show, KGO-AM Newstalk, San Francisco, Dec. 14, 2009

The Three Questions for the Public on the Federal Budget

Scott Bittle — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:56:22 -0500

It may sound like mindless optimism at the moment, but there are actually signs of hope for the federal budget. Those signs aren’t in the numbers themselves – the long-term fiscal projections are as bleak as ever. The budget debate has never really been about numbers in any case. Rather, the signs are in a question that’s being asked more and more frequently in our public debate: “Can we afford it?”

We’re hearing this in the arguments over health care and climate change. We’re hearing it over the economic stimulus and the expanded war in Afghanistan. We’re hearing these concerns raised in Congress. And we’re hearing them acknowledged by the president, even in speeches like the one President Obama gave on sending more troops to Afghanistan.

This is significant because it’s a question that had almost been ignored in Washington for years. Oh, it would get mentioned, but almost as a rhetorical point. Somehow, the political system always got past that concern. Whether it was more spending or deeper tax cuts, something else always turned out to be more important than balancing the books. We were setting priorities, but the cost of those priorities never seemed to be considered.

Now, at least, the question is being raised, and seriously. There are still two further questions both leaders – and the public – have to wrestle with if we’re going to get out of our financial mess.

One of them is this: “Can we keep the status quo?” Unfortunately, most budget experts, both liberal and conservative, would tell you the answer is no. Most of the people who’ve looked at this issue, whether they’re liberal or conservative, in or out of government, use the same word to describe the federal budget: “unsustainable.” The status quo just can’t continue.

The best example of this is health care. Whether we can afford any of the health care proposals on the table is a legitimate question. But it’s worth remembering that health care will break the federal budget if we do nothing. There are two things driving our long-term budget problem: demographics and health care costs. The population is getting older, so more retired people will be eligible for Medicare and Social Security, even as there are fewer people in the workforce paying in to those programs. And if health care costs continue to go up as they are, our health care spending will double in 10 years if current trends continue, and that means costs for Medicare and Medicaid will rise right along with them.

Most budget experts will tell you that there’s no way we can get out of our long-term budget crunch without doing something to control health care costs. Whether any of the health care proposals on the table does that successfully is another issue, but there’s no doubt that something has to change. From the debate so far on health care, however, it isn’t clear that either Congress or the public has bought into that.

The third question is hardest of all, for both leaders and the public: “Am I willing to give up something I want because the government can’t afford it?” Our current debate hasn’t even started on this one, but it may be the most important. It’s easy to cut programs somebody else wants, or raise taxes that you won’t have to pay. It’s another to actually give up something that matters to you.

Yes, everyone should have dealbreakers, programs or principles that they believe absolutely must be preserved. But it’s just as important to know what’s not a dealbreaker. Our fiscal problems are so huge that something’s got to be sacrificed, and none of the potential choices are going to fly without public support. That means one essential task for political leaders is to help the public think through what the dealbreakers really are as a nation.

When the public starts wrestling with that third question, the setting of priorities, that sense of what’s essential and what’s not, then we’ll be able to make the choices we need to make financially.