EDUCATORS: NEWSFEED

Below The Radar

Maya Dusenbery — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:59:46 -0500

Between the long shadow cast by the economy and the excitement of the historic election of Barack Obama as the new president of the United States, there's one subject which has barely made it into the headlines. Among the ballot initiatives that were decided in the fifty states were three referenda which would have banned or restricted abortion. These measures, in South Dakota, Colorado, and California, were all defeated.

Although the pro-life and pro-choice movements often appear irreconcilably polarized, the public does not seem to consider the issue so clear-cut. In fact, while a majority of the public supports Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the U.S., few Americans hold strictly pro-choice or pro-life views. Twenty-four percent believe abortion should be "legal under any circumstances," 57% believe it should be legal "only under certain circumstances," and 18% believe it should be "illegal in all circumstances."

Americans also seem to differentiate between their individual beliefs and what they think should be codified in law. For example, while 53% of the public personally believe that, in general, abortion is morally wrong, 68% also think that regardless of their own individual beliefs, it is a decision to be made by the woman and her doctor.

Although abortion is a highly divisive issue, the intense battle between the most zealous segments of the pro-choice and pro-life movements serves to obscure the fact that much of the public sees a gray area. Lost in the vitriolic political debate is the fact that many Americans, although uncomfortable with a government ban on abortion, would also like to see a lot less of them.

Both the pro-life and pro-choice movements would do well to focus less on demonizing the other side (as baby-killers, on the one hand, or religious fanatics, on the other) and more on solving one goal that those on either side of the issue can agree on: reducing the number of abortions. Perhaps, by listening to the complex opinions of the public, we can find a common-ground approach to ending the long, bitter conflict over abortion in the U.S.

For more information on public views on abortion, see Public Agenda's issue guide on the subject at http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/abortion.

Could an Economic Downturn Be the Ticket to Health Care Reform?

Jenny Choi — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:25:53 -0500

An analysis in the Los Angeles Times today posits what could prove to be a tipping point for the health care crisis: the current economic slump. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced his proposal last week for a universal health care package, and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), a long-time proponent of expanded coverage, says he plans to advance his own universal health care plan next week. But how can we possibly be talking about expanding coverage at the same time that the government has a ballooning deficit?

Health care costs in the current economic climate have no doubt placed an enormous added strain on the uninsured and the newly unemployed, not to mention employers, health care providers and the government. But many believe that health care and the economy are inextricably linked -- that, in essence, health care is an economic problem. Last week, the New America Foundation released a report, "The Cost of Doing Nothing," which argues that waiting to reform the system, while costs continue to skyrocket, comes with a price. By their calculations, the "economic cost of failure," the billions of dollars in lost productivity for those without coverage, is actually less cost-effective than covering every American.

Americans, on the whole, agree that our current health care system has major flaws and is in need of change, but the degree of reform is less unanimous. Public support for a universal health care plan varies based on survey question wording. Two-thirds believe it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that all American have health coverage, but they are less galvanized about requiring it by law. Still, the consensus is that lowering the cost of health care and extending it to more people are the most important issues for the president and Congress to deal with.

More on public attitudes about various health care issues can be found in our red flags section, and be sure to visit the health care guide in our Citizen's Survival Kit for the bigger picture: key facts and statistics, plus a discussion guide that offers three approaches to the problem, with pros, cons and specific strategies for each.

The View From Here: One Of Wall Street's Own
Looks At Past Mistakes, Present Opportunities

Francie Grace — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:13:20 -0500

By Meagan Murray

William H. Donaldson (right), a member of Barack Obama's transition team and former top boss at both the SEC and the NYSE, shares his insights on Wall Street, regulation and the bailout, in a conversation with National Public Radio's Robert Siegel.

The coming year, says William H. Donaldson, is most likely going to be a rough one. "But I have high hopes that we will have pulled ourselves out - that the world will have pulled itself out – of this in four years."

The economic forecast comes from one of Wall Street's own - a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission whose many credentials in finance and government include a stint as president of the New York Stock Exchange and his current status as an economic advisor on President-elect Barack Obama's transition team.

Speaking in New York Nov. 17th at the latest installment of the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast lecture series, Donaldson shared his misgivings about the strategy of trying to stem the slide on Wall Street by having the government use taxpayer funds to buy the banking industry's most loss-mired portfolios.

"The problem with attempting to buy the ‘so-called' toxic assets is, among other things, how you price them," said Donaldson. "If you pay too much, you are subsidizing the banks. If you pay too little, you may destroy the banking system."

The better option, Donaldson stated, is injecting equity capital into the banks to create the capability for lending again.

Known as a stickler for regulation during his time at the SEC, Donaldson sees now as pertinent a time as ever for the government to play a hand in monitoring the banking industry.

"There is some opaqueness as to what demands the government has made on the banking system for putting the money in," he said. "The banks are sitting on that capital and not investing it, not loaning it. That was not the reason they've been re-liquefied. There is not much sunlight in terms of exactly what is going on."

Donaldson continued to say that arguments for continued deregulation, similar to those the New York Times reports are now being advanced by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, are destructive toward economic repair. Donaldson also believes Gramm's own deregulatory efforts – specifically the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate and obviated the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (one of the many regulatory forms of legislation passed by Congress during the Depression era) – "let everybody get into everybody else's business." The fallout, he said, resulted in both the SEC and Federal Reserve being held responsible for monitoring the banking sector, which Donaldson claimed "left huge gaps of unregulated business – the most notorious being the mortgage business."

The problem lies in the differences of responsibilities between the two agencies. The SEC, Donaldson said, serves as a police agency for investor protection by ensuring public disclosure and oversight of issued securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, is in charge of making sure the banking system is functioning strongly. The problem, Donaldson says, is there is no overlap or consideration for either bureau.

"Whose jurisdiction is this?" he asked in reference to the fallout of regulating the banking industry. "The Fed is not concerned about the investor; they're concerned about the impact of that business on the system, whereas the SEC is concerned about the investor information," Donaldson said. "Those are two totally different missions… and so there is a conflict."

Asked about the campaign by U.S. automakers to get government help, an issue on the front burner in the lame duck session of Congress, Donaldson was reluctant to back any one approach to the problem. "When you get into the automotive industry, we're dealing with a totally different animal," he said. "We're dealing with a commercial operation and a competitive industry that's competing on a world-wide basis."

An option he said both the automotive companies and government could consider is bankruptcy, wherein the company does not disappear, but winds up being restructured under new management - although American morale, he acknowledged, likely would be dented by a bankruptcy of a landmark corporation such as General Motors.

Another possibility could be a compromise between bankruptcy and a federal bailout plan, in which creditors and stockholders negotiate a plan of reorganization without filing for Chapter 11.

All in all, Donaldson believes the auto industry's woes will be another burden pushed onto the next administration. In his opinion, there is no "silver bullet" regulation that can be immediately put into effect and fix the economy, but he does suggest that the credit market should open up again to consumers, both at home and worldwide.

"We're no longer isolated," he said. "We can address some of these regulatory changes… and get our house in order, but it will be meaningless unless we have a global approach - unless we have regulation around the world that is coordinated and basically prevents somebody from fleeing a highly regulated environment to a less regular environment. That's going to be really tough to do… An attempt to get the world coordinated is one of the big challenges going on in the world right now."

Donaldson said that events such as the G-20 meeting held this past weekend in Washington are critical to addressing the need for global cooperation with economic regulation. While principles and guidelines are easy enough to extract from thought, he knows enforcing them worldwide as rules will be a task built from the ground up; something he believes our country has to achieve on its own before we can apply it to the global economy.

In the end, he left the audience with a glimmer of hope for the economy. "Things do change," Donaldson said. "There's an amazing resuscitating – from the ashes rise entrepreneurs – and I think that's going to continue."

To keep informed on the economy and the choices we face as a nation, and to let our leaders know what you want, check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and our Take It To The Next Level console of e-mail addresses for everyone from the president and president-elect on down to your Senators and Congressional representative.

Homework For The New Administration And The 111th Congress

Francie Grace — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0500

Entering a new era in Washington is a good time for many things, including a good hard look at what needs to be done to improve our education system, from pre-kindergarten all the way up through college. With that in mind, Paul Gasbarra of our Education Insights unit has written an open letter to the president-elect and lawmakers, with an education reform "to do" list to tack to their Blackberries as they return to Washington. We invite you to check out his list and then log on to our site to discuss the education issues you feel should be priorities in 2009.

An Open Letter To President-Elect Obama And The 111th Congress

Francie Grace — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:10:55 -0500

by Paul Gasbarra

Congratulations on your victory, we look forward to being served by you. You have all worked hard to earn the trust of the people and garner their votes. Soon you will be convening in Washington to craft policy that will improve and preserve democracy in our country.

There are many challenges ahead of you: curing a sick economy, managing two wars overseas, helping Americans keep their homes, to name a few, and we here at Education Insights know that this will keep you busy for quite some time.

However we must add to your long and daunting "to do" list the task of improving the educational system in our country. Every sector from Pre-K to college needs improvement, so while you are thinking hard between sessions, we would like to give you our own modest assignment to tackle before you ascend Capitol Hill or take office at the White House.

Public Agenda is in the unique position of being equipped to provide you not only with a list of ideas but also with a healthy dose of public thought.

You no doubt heard much of the public's thoughts during your campaign, but we have carefully gathered public opinion on a variety of issues and would like to share our resources with you.

Teachers

The Obama Administration has made it clear that getting good teachers into schools is a top priority. The ranks of teachers need to be filled, and the teachers need to be better trained and mentored. Our report "Stand By Me: What Teachers Really Think about Unions, Merit Pay and Other Professional Matters," offers a chance to get a look at what teachers themselves think, and their views are more textured and complex than many assume.

For example, most teachers support standardized testing, high school exit exams, and using testing as a basis for promotion. At the same time, most are concerned about the amount of testing and the danger that too much "teaching to the test" can stifle real learning. Similarly, teachers support higher academic standards, and very few want to return to policies of the past such as social promotion. Yet, most want standards set by educators, and not by state or local elected officials.

Lawmakers are legitimately concerned about the need to remove ineffective teachers who "are just going through the motions," and they may be tempted to focus mainly on eliminating tenure or reducing the influence of teachers' unions. But the views of rank and file teachers suggest a more complex situation. Most teachers say that without unions, their working conditions and salaries would be worse, and they might be vulnerable to unfair charges from parents or students. Yet, nearly half say unions sometimes protect teachers who shouldn't be in the classroom, and most acknowledge that receiving tenure is no guarantee that teachers have proved their effectiveness in the classroom.

"Stand By Me" also offers insights helpful to those trying to insure that new teachers start off on the right foot. Teachers believe the rookies among them need more training on how to handle discipline problems. The newbies themselves see reducing class size and requiring high school teachers to major in their subject as very effective ways to improve teacher quality.

Our latest series of teacher reports deals even more closely with new teachers. "Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges and Long Range Plans," (see each part of the series, Issue I, Issue II and Issue III) offers a great deal of insight into how new teachers are trained, how they fare in their first year, and the distinctive challenges of middle and high school teachers.

New teachers are upfront about revealing they need more preparation, especially when it comes to dealing with more diverse classrooms and working with special needs students. New high-school and middle-school teachers are more likely to say they have problems with student discipline and are not getting support from the administration. Finally, new teachers from premier alternative programs such as Teach For America or Troops-To-Teachers are more idealistic than their traditional path counterparts, but often say they could use more preparation and support than they currently receive.

A Mission of the Heart: What Does It Take to Transform a School, which focuses on principals in high-needs schools, also provides food for thought. Most principals we interviewed fell into one of two distinct categories: they were either "transformers," with an explicit vision of what their school might be like and a specific plan for moving it forward, or they were "copers," just struggling to avoid being overwhelmed and make it through the day without the situation getting worse. It's a crucial and intriguing difference, and it could be an important key to transforming troubled schools.

Higher Education

Current economic woes threaten higher education in a variety of ways.

As Wall Street's woes increased, the size of many college and university endowments decreased, due to the declining value of many investments. Donors are also not immune to stock market fluctuations and economic problems and have less money to give schools. Students and their families are furthermore less likely to be able to afford college in a trying economy, and lenders are cagier about loaning money.

Unfortunately, studies here at Public Agenda suggest the picture was getting grim for the college-bound even before the bad news of the last few months. Our report, "Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today," is required reading for legislators interested in a snapshot of public views on higher education.

Most people feel that a college education is virtually a right, something that should be provided to qualified students regardless of cost. Less than half of Americans believe that someone can succeed without a college education, and they believe that employers are less likely to hire individuals with a degree.

People still tend to believe that college offers a solid education but more than ever, they think qualified students don't have the opportunity. It is important to take action to reverse this sentiment which has been growing steadily for the past decade. Moreover, significant numbers of Americans question whether higher education is becoming too much like a business with diminishing focus on education itself.

Solving the challenges facing higher education today will require the participation of many stakeholders, not least among them the leaders of colleges and universities. In our report, "The Iron Triangle: College Presidents Talk About Costs, Access, and Quality," we find that university presidents for the most part see cost, quality and access as locked into an unbreakable reciprocal relationship.

In their view, the improvements that many Americans want to see, such as more opportunity for qualified students to go to school, cannot be made without resources. . College presidents believe that to increase access and decrease costs would mean sacrificing quality. They would like to see more government investment in higher education and improvements in K-12.

A stalemate among stakeholders appears all but certain unless steps are taken to encourage a more candid and probing dialogue about what it's going to take to build the kind of higher education system to U.S. needs for the future.

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education (STEM)

Technology is king in our information economy, but the STEM fields may face a dwindling talent pool unless efforts to educate and recruit more young learners to the scientific ranks aren't stepped up. Our report, "Reality Check: Are Parents and Students Ready for More Math and Science?", takes a close look at the thoughts of parents on this subject. We also got a more focused look at the issue in the Midwest with a report called "Important But Not For Me: Parents and Students in Kansas and Missouri Talk about Math, Science and Technology Education."

Reality Check reveals that while math and science are on parents' radar as important topics, more than half of parents interviewed believe that math and science education in their own child's school is fine as it is, with nearly 7 in 10 parents of high school students saying this. Perhaps this is a misconception that lawmakers should address. Students themselves aren't that keen on math and computer skills, just half of them believe that strong math and science skills are absolutely essential.

Public Agenda has also taken a close look at the Hispanic population's relationship with Math and Science. In our report, "Out Before the Game Begins," we spoke with prominent leaders in science, business, and public service about what will be needed to help Hispanics - the nation's fastest growing population group - get involved in science, math, and engineering, as their presence will be greatly needed there.

The leaders we spoke with had many helpful insights and emphasized that many young Hispanics are poorly served by the education system, lack of strong English-language-learning program and a lack of important role models in the STEM fields. Combined, these hurdles make it difficult to encourage them to pursue science education.

In a partner report to "Out Before The Game Begins," Public Agenda analyzed and compiled our recent opinion survey findings presented it in "A Matter of Trust: Ten Key Insights from Recent Public Opinion Research on Attitudes About Education Among Hispanic Parents, Students and Young Adults." In this report, we found that Hispanic parents are more trusting of teachers and administrators and value college education even more than non-Hispanic parents. However, many believe the schools their children attend suffer from by a lack of resources and social problems such as violence in schools and high dropout rates.

Public Engagement

Finally, in tough times like these, it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to afford all the things we might want, such as new facilities, new technology, or big pay raises for teachers. But this doesn’t mean we can’t do anything.

One of the greatest contributions new leadership can make is to create and support opportunities for the public to get involved through well-designed and moderated opportunities for citizen engagement and problem-solving.

In the summer of 2007, Public Agenda convened a meeting of foundation representatives and leaders of community-based organizations, to explore the relationship between philanthropy, community engagement and civic health, especially with respect to the specific case of education.

At the meeting, leaders addressed using a citizen-centered approach as a model to follow. Participants argued that it would be difficult for a school to remain unhealthy in a healthy community and likewise a healthy school would not last long in an unhealthy community. So while our economy may not be healthy, our communities don’t need to follow suit.

Another important insight that came from this meeting is that participants spoke about the potential for leaders to effect meaningful change.

We'll leave you with what we hope is an inspiring quote from that conference - - words we believe are a call to action for the leaders who have stepped forward at this time when we are facing so many critical challenges:

"Very few figures have the power to capture the imagination of citizens and really mobilize the public. Therefore it's important to capitalize on those moments when powerful leaders step up and say they want to engage citizens."

Sharing the Dream

Peiting Chen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:07:35 -0500

This Public Agenda report, prepared for the "Achieving the Dream" initiative to close achievement gaps at the nation's community colleges, offers insight into how the initiative's goals will be received by critical stakeholders in and around community colleges.

Opportunity Knocks

Peiting Chen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:02:37 -0500

"Opportunity Knocks" reports findings from qualitative research conducted on parent and student attitudes about math, engineering, science, and technology education in the Kansas City region. The report builds on finding published in another Public Agenda report, "Important, but Not for Me" and explores how regional leaders can bridge the "urgency gap" by using language that emphasizes the concrete opportunities associated with improved math and science education and achievement.

The Way Forward

Michael Remaley — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:01:51 -0500

The process – not the rhetoric – of change.

If change is to come, we cannot return to business as usual. We have seen so many elections that promised hope and more responsive government. And time and again, we have returned from our polling places to our homes and just waited for change to come. This time, something must be different.

It is wonderful that Americans showed their commitment by standing in lines for hours to vote or volunteered in the final months of the campaign – no matter which candidate they supported. But change will not come if citizens return to disengagement and leaders head to Washington and only listen to themselves and to lobbyists. The public voice that roared with impressive voter turnout cannot go silent in the months and years to come if we are to make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

This election brought more people of diverse backgrounds and young people into the political process than ever before. It would be a tragedy if American politics alienates those newcomers with a political process that doesn't ask for their continued involvement and returns to the same old bickering between parties and jockeying for political points instead of long-term planning for the challenges that lay ahead.

President-elect Barack Obama said, "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." But it isn't always easy to listen to Americans from all walks of life when you spend the majority of your time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. How can the president stay connected?

Public dialogue is the way forward.

With no clear consensus on how to proceed in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge unresolved questions about how to spur economic growth and no national consensus on issues like health care, immigration, energy and taxes, it is clear that the election did not provide all of the answers. Even if one believes that the election was a repudiation of the Bush administration's agenda, it cannot be asserted that an Obama administration has carte blanche to proceed without heed.

The promise of full public participation cannot end with the campaign.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

Organizations like Public Agenda help communities to connect with leaders, have substantive conversations based on thorough issue frameworks, and make progress on tough issues that demand compromise and sacrifice. We know that informed citizens are the real leaders of change across America, and no major reform can take place in the United States without their participation and support. We also know that a public that is not fully involved in learning and contributing to the national conversation can be a major barrier to change.

Real public dialogue isn't public relations in different clothing. Nor is it a "nice idea" in democratic theory. Public dialogue is the actual day-to-day, down-in-the-trenches practice of democracy. It's bringing together people who normally would never sit in the same room and helping them explore issues and find common ground for action. It is extending the conversation that happens between candidates during campaigns to communities across America so that people of all walks of life and from many sets of experiences can weigh in with their own knowledge and beliefs. Building national consensus on the tough issues we face requires hard work to keep Americans engaged and learning.

PUBLIC DIALOGUE IS THE WAY FORWARD.

America didn't just vote for Barack Obama, it voted for a different way of conducting politics. With this election, Americans have said: "We want leaders who listen." Listening can't happen through lobbyists and the echo chamber that is Washington. Dialogue works. Dialogue is the practice of democracy for the 21st century. Dialogue is the way forward, together.

Persistence Unnoticed

Paul Gasbarra — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:24:50 -0500

Is a diploma by any other name a diploma? I suppose it depends on who you ask. Graduation rates in the country are just under 70 percent, meaning that fewer than seven in ten freshmen who enter the system graduate from high school four years later.

Many of those who don't make it through are dropouts who quit school entirely, but a portion of this number are students who are taking longer than four years to complete the curriculum. A recent article in the Washington Post addresses this discrepancy, featuring the stories of students who are working full-time and coming to classes at odd hours in order to finalize their high school education. Though many favor the method of tallying the graduation rate as described above, many students are getting their diplomas and going on to find success by taking the long road.

This is a problem that is particularly pronounced in the Latino community. The Washington Post article features a handful of stories concerning students who are supporting themselves, sending money to family in other countries and completing school. In Public Agenda's summary of educational data, "A Matter of Trust: Ten Key Insights from Recent Public Opinion Research on Attitudes About Education Among Hispanic Parents, Students and Young Adults," we find that Hispanic students are more likely to say dropping out is a serious problem as well as more likely to see cutting class as a serious problem. So the encouraging thing to take from the Post article is that students are returning to school to get the job done.

According to "A Matter of Trust," most young Hispanics say they got a lot of encouragement to go to college. This is a promising sign, and getting their diploma is a first step. Such an education is highly valued among Hispanics, with 52 percent saying most people are really impressed by someone who graduates from college.

So the process is highly valued -- it may just take longer to get to the finish line than what is traditionally measured. States such as Virginia are tallying five-year graduation rates as well as four-year graduation rates. As the situation improves, we expect to see higher rates of graduates in both categories.

Our Responsibility And Opportunity To Participate In Change

Francie Grace — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:02:29 -0500

Now that the election is over, will citizens stay engaged and continue working for the public good, or will they become passive observers and consumers, waiting for the latest set of leaders to come up with solutions to the incredible challenges we face? To make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues, the public voice that made itself heard during the election cannot afford to be silent. Click here to read Public Agenda President Ruth Wooden's thoughts on what citizens need to do, and to be an informed citizen on the issues, check out our Citizen's Survival Kit.

The People Have A Responsibility, And Deserve The Opportunity, To Participate In Change

Ruth Wooden — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:20:29 -0500

By Public Agenda President Ruth A. Wooden

Americans stood in lines to vote for hours and volunteered in staggering numbers in the final months of the campaign – and no matter which candidate they supported this was an impressive display of citizenship.

Now that the election is over, the question is this: Will citizens stay engaged and continue working for the public good, or will they return to their private concerns and become passive observers and consumers, waiting for the latest set of leaders to come up with solutions to the incredible challenges we face?

We believe that, if we are to make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues, the public voice that made itself heard on various sides of the issues during the election cannot go silent in the months and years to come.

Real change will only come if government and citizens work together to create it. And I’m not just thinking of traditional citizen activists of the left and right. The nation needs a much larger, richer and more diverse array of citizens working together to help the nation find and put in place pragmatic, and not ideological, solutions to complex problems.

But is it realistic to think that the nation can continue to tap the energy and creativity of millions of citizens now that the organizing framework of the election is over? There is if the right conditions are put in place. For over thirty years Public Agenda has worked for better public dialogue, more robust public participation and a more productive working relationship among citizens, experts and policymakers. We know it is possible to bring more citizens to the table, put fresh ideas on the table, and work through our differences and resistances to change to find ways to move forward together.

The problems we face as a nation are great, and we cannot afford to leave citizens out of solving them. The hugely effective grassroots organizing that took place during the election season ought to be mobilized to keep Americans engaged and learning. The vast majority of Americans would be happy to hear the message: “The election may be over, but your job as citizen isn’t done yet.”

Citizens deserve the opportunity to stay engaged and the times that we live in demand that they do. Public Agenda will contribute all it can to help bring this about, and will join with others from all sectors of society who share this goal.

For all the help you need to stay engaged as an active citizen, understand the choices we face as a nation, and let our leaders know what you want and what you expect them to do, see our Citizen's Survival Kit and its issue guides on the Economy, Iraq & Beyond, Health Care, Taxes, Spending & Debt, Immigration, and Climate Change.

The New Pragmatism: Coping With America's Overwhelming Problems

Francie Grace — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:32:38 -0500

Learning Curve: A Tool For Problem-Solving

The U.S. needs a "New Pragmatism" to overcome the severe but solvable problems facing the nation, according to Public Agenda chairman and co-founder Daniel Yankelovich. In his Drucker Day address [see transcript of speech] at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, the social scientist examines why America's problem-solving skills have deteriorated, and lays out a new theory of the public's "learning curve" on difficult issues.

Mr. Yankelovich, a public opinion research pioneer, argues the nation's ability to effectively grapple with problems has eroded. That's primarily for cultural reasons, such as the growth of self-isolating communities, political polarization and a gap between experts and the public in how they frame issues.

In the face of these obstacles, traditional techniques like technological fixes, legislation and public relations may not work, he said. In his presentation, Mr. Yankelovich noted that pragmatism, a philosophy with deep roots in American history, focuses on action and experimentation rather than rigid ideology. In contrast, obstacles to resolving many key current public policy issues, on the other hand, often are ideological and cultural – that is, differences over core values.

Public Agenda chairman Daniel Yankelovich, seen here speaking at Claremont Graduate University, is suggesting that public opinion research – a field in which he is a pioneer – be used as a tool to learn more, and more quickly, about roadblocks preventing the resolution of difficult public policy disputes.

Those problems can themselves be fought with a cultural approach – the cultural approach of New Pragmatism, a traditional habit of American thought – which Mr. Yankelovich identifies as useful in working through difficult challenges we face today, including energy policy and dependence on foreign oil.

A New Pragmatist approach, says Mr. Yankelovich, calls for new tools to accelerate the public's "learning curve" on issues. He points out that the public goes through several stages in thinking about issues, from initial consciousness-raising to "working through" the alternatives to come to resolution.

But on complicated problems, the public's ability to get up to speed and grapple effectively with emerging problems may be too slow. Mr. Yankelovich argues that new opinion research tools are needed both to identify the obstacles to public involvement and to overcome them.

For more on the "New Pragmatism," see his PowerPoint presentation, view the streaming video of the speech, or read the transcript of the speech, given as the kickoff to the Peter Drucker centennial celebrations Nov. 8, 2008, at the Drucker School of Management at Claremont.

The Red Tape Jungle

Francie Grace — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:59:15 -0500

What can be done about excess bureaucracy in the schools? Public Agenda's Jean Johnson is among the experts discussing the issue in an online forum hosted by NewTalk.org. Forum participant Jane Hannaway of the Urban Institute notes bureaucracy is supposed to make things run more smoothly but trouble results when rules become more important than the goal of student achievement. Other participants include Marco Petruzzi of Green Dot Public Schools, who points out that many policies sprang from a "kernel of thoughtfulness" but now sap the spirit of common sense.

Out Of The Past

Scott Bittle — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:56:32 -0500

To get a sense of how public attitudes about race have changed, you need only look back at the America Barack Obama was born in, and compare it to the one that has elected him as the first African American president.

Race is one of the most painful themes in U.S. history, and public opinion is full of contradictions and complexities. If you look back at survey results from the late 1950s and early 1960s, as Public Agenda did for the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, you can see how unimaginable a black president must have been:

In 1958, an overwhelming 94 percent told Gallup they opposed interracial marriages, such as the one between Obama's parents. (Today, eight in 10 say they approve).

In 1959, a little more than half, 53 percent, said the Brown decision "caused more trouble than it was worth."

In May 1961, most people (57 percent) told the Gallup poll that sit-ins at lunch counters and the activities of the "Freedom Riders" would actually hurt African Americans' chances for integration.

In 1964, Harris found 57 percent who disapproved of the "Freedom Summer" effort by civil rights workers to organize black voters in Mississippi.

It would be wrong to be too negative about public attitudes in this period. By the early 1960s, majorities of Americans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposed segregation laws. Most were repelled by heavy handed police tactics against protest marchers and backed presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy when they used troops and federal marshals to enforce civil rights laws. But there's no question the gap between the world of the early 1960s and the world we live in now is enormous.

There are serious issues surrounding race in the United States – the gaps in income, educational achievement, and other statistics persist. There are also wide differences in perceptions on race relations between whites and minorities. The problems around race are not resolved, and there's still a lot for the nation to work on.

But one question can be laid to rest. Surveys have shown for some time that majorities of Americans said they were ready to vote for an African American for president. But doubts persisted, with many wondering if people were lying to the pollsters, and questioning whether the public would really follow through in the voting booth.

On Tuesday night, they did. And that can only be called progress.

Enter the Polls First, Then Worry About the Exit Polls

Scott Bittle — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:37:54 -0500

Election day is also exit poll day for many in the chattering classes, with much discussion of whether the exit polls might leak and whether they're accurate in predicting the election. Tonight, if the results are lopsided enough, there's even the possibility that the networks may call the election before the polls close on the West Coast.

We could leap into the technical analysis here, but there are plenty of good interpretations out there. There will also be fierce debate over what the networks choose to do, and whether calling the election early will keep people from voting. The point we've made before about other pre-election polls is all the more relevant for exit polls. The real benefit in exit polling is finding out why people voted the way they did, not getting a few hours head start on finding out who's going to win. Barring any major meltdowns, we'll all know soon enough.

Lots of people in the media and the political world treat politics like it was a sport. Well, if it is, it's not supposed to be a spectator sport. It's supposed to be a sport that everybody plays. Today, the election isn't about the talking heads or political junkies anymore. It's about the voters. And projections can only influence your behavior if you let it happen. Ignore them and you'll be fine.

If you're having trouble at the polls today, there are several initiatives that let people spread the word like Video Your Vote, My Fair Election and Twitter's Vote Report. If you need help, the Vote411 site from the League of Women voters is incredibly useful. And for the best election night coverage ever, you should turn to Monty Python:

Voter's Survival Kit: 8 Things You Need to Know about Taxes, Spending & Debt

Scott Bittle — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:28:51 -0500

There's time for one last look at the issues before the presidential election, and one thing seems worth remembering as the voting starts: Very little happens in this world without money, and one of the biggest challenges for the next president and Congress is the fact that the federal budget is in such bad shape.

"Follow the money," someone famously says in "All the President's Men" (a great political movie, by the way, and for more cinematic genius, check out our favorite political films list, log on to Public Agenda, and tell us your own favorites).

That's a good rule, because the budget sets the government's priorities. Granted, there are many challenges facing the country, from the economy to foreign policy. But to some extent, the budget underlies all of them.

And the budget is in bad shape. In the short term, we're looking at serious deficits, maybe as high as $1 trillion next year when the costs of the Wall Street bailout and another stimulus package are factored in. In the long run, nearly every expert says the budget is unsustainable, as the nation faces huge expenses for Medicare and Social Security.

That means finding enough money to get the job done is going to shape the priorities for the next president. Most experts are saying that we'll have to accept deficits for the next few years because of our troubled economy. But there's a limit, and there's no question that the government's financial situation is going to limit the options for the next administration.

So before you vote, and in the spirit of our Voter's Survival Kit, we're offering eight key things you need to know about the federal budget. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to acknowledge how serious the problems are. But whether they acknowledge it or not, everyone in Washington already knows these grim facts about the federal budget, and you should, too. It's going to make a big difference to the next president – and to your future.

Right now, the U.S. economy seems to be in a shambles, and most Americans want the government to play some role in helping us get through this. But government's ability to help out -- whether by cutting taxes, stabilizing the financial system, or helping Americans who are down on their luck -- is severely hampered by its own dire economic condition.

The government's going to run a huge deficit next year, no matter who wins the election. Deficits are the norm in Washington, and for 31 out of the last 35 years, the U.S. government has spent more on programs than it has collected in taxes.

This year alone, the red ink (that's the deficit) is expected to be close to half a trillion dollars. Next year will be worse, because of the slumping economy. Tax revenues will be down, and the government will be spending more to try and head off a serious recession.

When the government spends more money than it collects, it borrows to cover the cost. Over time, the U.S. government has accumulated a staggering $10 trillion federal debt. Right now, we spend more money each year on interest on the debt than we spend on the war in Iraq.

There's simply no way the government can cut taxes, or even keep them at current levels, and still afford all the programs people say they want. Something's got to give.

Budget experts across the political spectrum – liberals, conservatives and the government's own auditors – say the country is facing huge additional expenses in Medicare and Social Security as health costs rise and retiring baby boomers begin to leave the work force.

Medicare is the biggest problem. Not only does Medicare have to cover the needs of 78 million baby boomers, it also has to deal with health care costs that are rising much faster than the rate of inflation.

If we do nothing, the country's debt will be growing faster than our economy in about 15 years, which means we won't be able to keep up. By 2040, the country would need nearly every dollar it collects in taxes just to cover the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt.

To protect Americans who rely on Social Security and Medicare and reduce the unsustainable costs of these programs, we need to start reforming them right away. Relatively small changes now will make a big difference later, but the longer we wait, the harder this will be for everyone.

How do we know this? Here are our sources:

Budget of the United States Government; Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook, September 2008 and The Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, December 2007; U.S. Government Accountability Office, The Nation's Long-Term Fiscal Outlook April 2008; Facing Up to the Nation's Finances; and "Where Does the Money Go?", by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson.

The Great Listener Departs, But Leaves Us With Some Lessons

Francie Grace — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:42:20 -0500

I always hope the president will be wise and make good decisions which will protect us from harm and respect each of our individual rights to pursue life, love, liberty and happiness.

But very few politicians have made it onto my list of heroes and heroines.

Not that I don't have any.

Studs Terkel, the author, oral historian, radio star, actor and all-around unique American who died Friday in his adopted hometown of Chicago at age 96, was a superstar to me.

I was about 19, huddled in a very cold dormitory, when I first encountered "Working," his masterpiece in which men and women in all walks of life are interviewed and talk about the world as seen through their eyes - and as revealed by Studs' questions.

I knew as I read it that it was important work, and art on a scale equal to anything that would ever hit the auction block at Sotheby's.

As I went on to try to do my own part listening to people, as a journalist, Studs continued to crank out the hits. Sometimes he dropped in on folks he'd interviewed before - in one case, visiting a former Klansman who acknowledged that as he went through life, he realized he'd been on the wrong side of things and had a lot in common with the people he had thought were his enemies.

Just about everyone was glad to tell their story to Studs, who a bit like Joe the Plumber (whose first name is Sam), was not named Studs by his mom and dad. He took the name from Studs Lonigan, the title character of a trilogy written by another legendary American author - James T. Farrell - about the working class Irish on the South Side of Chicago.

Naming yourself is, of course, a very revealing move. Studs did have a very deep feeling for the working class and got his big break as a writer churning out scripts for the WPA's Writers' Project, one of many New Deal programs which recognized that writers and artists are as important to this country as roadworkers, builders and everyone else.

Studs, I think, always returned the favor: he thought everyone was important, and that's why they couldn't wait to tell him their most personal thoughts and secrets, despite seeing his tape recorder right in front of them.

Here at Public Agenda, we also believe it's important to listen, particularly to the people who frequently aren't heard in the policy debate. That's what public engagement is all about: the concept that very different people and groups of people, if they will commit to listening to each other and considering each other's needs, really can work out solutions to some of society's most difficult problems.

It's something to think about as we all cast our votes in this most contentious election.

Voter's Survival Kit: Eight Things You Need to Know About Immigration

Scott Bittle — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:52:13 -0400

So whatever happened to immigration policy? It's been one of the nation's fiercest disputes for several years and a hot issue even during the primary season. Yet immigration never even came up during the presidential debates and even though the candidates may be shifting their positions, it isn't getting much media attention.

That's a shame, because it’s a topic many Americans feel passionate about – and it's not going away. The fact is that the last several attempts to fix the immigration laws haven't gone anywhere, but all the pressures and concerns about immigration are still there.

But one of the challenges in talking about immigration is that the debate usually brings more heat than light. So it helps to have a sense of the basic facts, which of course is what our Voter's Survival Kit is all about. For a complete rundown on the subject, including options for addressing the issue, have a look at our survival kit guide on "Immigration: Who Gets to Come, Who Gets to Stay."

In the meantime, here's eight key things you should know about immigration:

Six in 10 Americans believe that, in principle, immigration is a "good thing" for the country, but three-quarters (77 percent) worry that it may be too easy for illegal immigrants to come into the country.

The U.S. admits more than one million immigrants a year, and more than 12 percent of the U.S. population is foreign-born.

There are an estimated 11.7 million illegal or undocumented immigrants in the country. U.S. border agents say they apprehended over one million people in 2006.

Current laws emphasize family ties for admission, and most legal immigrants are, in fact, relatives of people already here.

Although legal immigration rates are historically high, they have fallen since the early 1990s.

More than half of immigrants settle in just four "gateway" states (California, Florida, New York and Texas). Increasingly, however, immigrants are moving to areas of the country with very little history of immigration.

More than half of illegal or undocumented immigrants come from Mexico and Central America.

Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the current immigration system, Congress was unable to pass compromise legislation in 2006, even though it had the support of leading Democrats and Republicans.

How do we know this? Here are our sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Foreign-Born Population; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics; Public Agenda, People's Chief Concerns on Immigration