Monday, April 25th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
Public Agenda's new Cutting Edge paper on engaging faculty has been getting a lot of attention, and President Will Friedman participated in a panel discussion on the challenge at the Achieving the Dream Strategy Institute in February. You can see video of the session below (it's in two parts). Or, you can follow these links to Part 1 and Part 2 of the session.
Thursday, April 21st, 2011 | Scott Bittle
An AP-Roper survey of 18-to-24 year-olds released this week found that most gave their schools low marks for helping them find the right college, choose a field of study, or come up with ways to pay for their schooling.
Public Agenda research last year, “Can I Get a Little Advice Here?”, found very similar results. Based on a national survey of young adults, ages 22 to 30, we found six in 10 of those who went on to further education gave their high school counselors poor grades for their college advice, and nearly half say they felt like "just a face in the crowd."
What’s more, young people who say they got poor counseling are more likely to say that they would have attended a different school if money were not an issue, by a 46 percent to 35 percent margin. They are also less likely to say that they received a scholarship or financial aid for college; only about 4 in 10 say they got financial help compared with more than half of those who believe that they received better counseling.
There’s a lot of evidence that the nation’s badly overstretched guidance system is a factor in our college completion problem, particularly for students who are the first in their family to go to college and don’t have many other sources of advice. Federal statistics show nearly 6 in 10 public school students are from families where neither parent has completed college. But while there’s consistent feedback from students that the current system isn’t working, more needs to be done to act on that feedback.
Those students’ voices should be heard – and if they’re not, the nation’s efforts to solve the college completion problem could still be derailed.
Thursday, April 14th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
The New York Times reported that student loan debt outpaced credit card debt for the first time last year, and two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with fewer than half in 1993.
Public Agenda’s research has found the public is increasingly concerned about student debt, with nearly two-thirds saying “students have to borrow too much money to pay for their college education.” That increased 9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009.
But the debate about student debt occurs in a broader context for the public, a context of colliding trends. The number of Americans who say college is “absolutely necessary” for success has increased more than 20 points, from 31 percent as recently as 2000 to 55 percent. At the same time, there’s been a corresponding drop in those who say the vast majority of qualified students have the opportunity to attend college, from 45 percent to 29 percent.
It’s important to note that the public is still very optimistic about a couple of points. Six in 10 parents say it’s “very likely” their child will go to college. Also, 62 percent of the general public believes “almost anyone can get financial help” to go to college.
But another part of the public’s reaction to these trends has been a growing skepticism about how colleges are run. Some 54 percent say colleges could spend less and still maintain a high quality of education. Six in 10 say colleges are “mostly concerned about the bottom line.”
Those trends – and those doubts – are going to put increasing pressure on colleges to make the most out of what they’ve got.
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
Of course, there's also the full version, which you can find here in the first of our Cutting Edge series of working papers. This is all part of Public Agenda's work with Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count, where we've developed core principles and promising practices for engaging faculty in changing institutions and closing student achievement gaps.
Thursday, April 7th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
The blogosphere was buzzing this week over an experiment reported at a political science conference. A Utah researcher traveled door-to-door in the last election, offering two different pitches to go out and vote: a well-reasoned argument about democracy, or coupons for things like fried chicken. The coupons, perhaps not surprisingly, won.
At Public Agenda, we actually have evidence that the voting experience is better than fast food. But we also think the problems in our democracy go deeper than what happens on Election Day.
Certainly America’s low voter turnout is a longstanding problem, and troubling on a number of levels. When Public Agenda examined this in our Voting Experience Survey after the 2008 elections, we found that, despite concerns about long lines and problematic voting machines, actually going to the polls was a positive experience for most voters.
The vast majority of the voters we surveyed, 9 in 10, said they had a positive experience and that poll workers did a good job. Very few reported problems with long lines, technical problems or improper practices.
In fact, polling places got good marks compared to other places where people transact business in person. We didn’t ask about chicken specifically, but when it comes to being “very well-organized,” polling places beat out fast-food franchises by a wide margin (79 percent to 35 percent). Polling places were essentially tied with banks, and ahead of other government agencies where people tend to wait in line, like the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Voting is often used as a yardstick for civic participation, and it’s important. But it’s also important to remember that the public needs to be engaged in ways beyond just voting. In between elections, we’re still making decisions as a society, and the public should be involved in those decisions, too. We’re facing a series of difficult public problems that are made much more difficult because leaders and the public frame them in different ways, and can’t reach across the divides in how they see them.
We go into elections with a public that isn’t getting much help understanding the choices they face – not the choices between candidates, necessarily, but the choices for actually solving the nation’s problems. We hear a lot more about personalities and character than options and tradeoffs. Character matters, clearly. But so does understanding the problems we face, and the options for dealing with them.
It’s that challenge – laying out the options in a way that people can understand, and helping people climb the “learning curve” they face – that trips the nation up between elections, when the real governing happens. And that’s not a problem that can be solved by voting people out of office. Or free chicken.
Thursday, March 31st, 2011 | Scott Bittle
Energy security is important to the public, and $100 per barrel oil and unrest in the Middle East shows they’re right to be concerned. But over the years we’ve had enormous difficulty moving from debate to decision on this topic. With another energy plan on the table, it’s worth revisiting how the public thinks about this problem.
When Public Agenda conducted its Energy Learning Curve survey, we included a “cluster analysis,” examining the data in terms of how people are grouped naturally based on knowledge and beliefs. On energy, we found the public divided into four groups: the Anxious (40 percent), the Greens (24 percent), the Disengaged (19 percent), and the Climate Change Doubters (17 percent).
Each of the four groups has a distinctive set of values, beliefs or concerns that shape how they approach the energy problem. The key point here is that if leaders are trying to build public support for an energy policy, understanding the public’s motivations is critical. What motivates one group might leave another cold or even repel them. The environmental arguments that resonate with the Greens, for example, would turn off the Doubters.
But there are also opportunities. One of the most intriguing findings is that so many people reach similar conclusions from completely different starting points. For example, both the Anxious and the Greens support alternative energy, but for entirely different reasons. The Anxious are worried about the price and supply of energy, and believe bringing new energy sources on line will help. The Greens, naturally, back them because they’re concerned about global warming and pollution.
Change, particularly when you’re dealing with a subject as complex as energy, requires knitting people with different concerns together. To help the public move up its “learning curve” on this issue, it’s fundamental to understand how people can see a problem through different lenses but still end up at the same place.
Monday, March 28th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
There's nothing more powerful than hearing people talk about their challenges in their own words -- and this video of students discussing the juggling act they face in trying to balance work, family and school is a great example.
The plenary session at the Achieving the Dream Strategy Institute in February featured a panel of students from Ivy Tech Community College and Santa Fe College, moderated by Public Agenda President Will Friedman. If you want to see how students meet this challenge -- one of the biggest when it comes to turning around the nation's college completion rate -- have a look at the video below:
Also, for statistics that back up the stories here, see the survey report, With Their Whole Lives Head of Them (below).
Thursday, March 24th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
One is faculty. Engaging faculty -- both full-time and adjuncts—in this effort is essential, in fact its difficult to see how we can solve this problem without them. Yet lots of institutions still find this kind of engagement difficult to pull off. Faculty members often enter the debate with very different concerns than, say college presidents or financial officers. In partnership with Achieving the Dream, we’ve developed core principles and promising practices for engaging faculty in changing institutions and closing student achievement gaps. You can find our first Cutting Edge Series paper on this here.
The other is young people themselves. In surveys of young people we’ve conducted for the Gates Foundation, we’ve found that people who don’t complete college tell an unexpected story, one that’s very different from a lot of the common perceptions. Most of them are paying their own way through school, and get relatively little help from the guidance system as they do it.
More than anything else, these young people are students under pressure: school pressure, work pressure, and family pressure. And when that pressure gets to be too much, it’s school that usually gets sacrificed. That’s why when we asked these young people what would help, they point to ideas that would give them more flexibility and ease the juggling act they find so difficult.
If we’re going to make a real difference in this problem, we need to make sure the challenges students face are front-and-center – and that the faculty members on the front line are full partners in meeting them.
Monday, March 21st, 2011 | Scott Bittle
At the Consumer Federation of America’s annual assembly last week, research director Jon Rochkind talked about “The Great Divide,” focusing on one of the major concerns of those who are struggling economically: higher education. (You can see it in Powerpoint or PDF format).
In our “Slip-Sliding Away” report, we found four in 10 Americans say they’re struggling “a lot” financially in the wake of the Great Recession. Most of the debate among policymakers and the media is about the short-term issues: how do we create jobs, how do we spur business. Yet while the economically struggling say they’re having trouble with short-term issues like paying their rent or mortgage, when asked what would help the most, their top choice was something quite different: “making higher education more affordable.”
Previous Public Agenda research shows that the public’s belief that a college education is necessary to get ahead is rising, even as they’re more and more worried that it’s financially out of reach. And we’ve also found the biggest factor keeping students from finishing college isn’t so much paying tuition, but the need to juggle work, school and family obligations.
The other presentation, “You Can’t Get There From Here,” (also in Powerpoint and PDF) is on another challenge: the federal deficit and national debt. Policymakers often throw up their hands at surveys that show the public with conflicting and even contradictory views on our fiscal problems.
But in our presentation at the Human Face of the Fiscal Crisis session sponsored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, we argue those gaps can be bridged with a better understanding of how the public thinks about complicated issues.
The public has a “Learning Curve” on problems, from initial “consciousness raising” to “working through” the alternatives and finally to resolution. When public opinion surveys show conflicting results, it’s usually because the public is still learning about a problem, and still figuring out what they want to do about it. And too often, the debate among policymakers and experts is “too wonky to work,” leaving the public behind.
The public can grapple with complicated issues, but they need a little help: a few key facts, viable options, and a focus on priorities. (You can find out more about ways to actually give people that help in Toward Wiser Public Judgment, the new book by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich and our president, Will Friedman).
Much of the budget debate is focused on brokering a deal in Washington – but the real challenge for policymakers on the deficit is whether they can make a deal that holds up both inside and outside the Beltway. Unless they do that, whatever deal that gets set won’t survive.
Friday, March 18th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
Yet the debate over nuclear safety and our energy options has been reopened – very understandably, even if the lessons of Fukushima Daiichi aren’t clear yet.
One key thing about our energy policy is clear, however: as a nation, we’re much better at saying “no” than saying “yes.” In many respects, the United States seems to be waiting for an easy answer, when the truth is that all forms of energy have risks and trade-offs.
Thanks to the BP spill, the answer may be no to more offshore drilling. The Japanese nuclear crisis may mean we say no to more nuclear power. Residents often object to all kinds of energy projects, whether they’re power plants, wind farms or transmission lines. A cap-and-trade system, which would encourage renewable energy like wind and solar, is off the table in Congress.
But we cannot solve our energy problems without saying “yes” to something. Global demand for energy is expected to increase 40 percent over the next two decades, even as the world tries to avoid permanent climate change. We need both more energy and cleaner energy, and we need to start making choices about how we’re going to get them. Perhaps the most damning projection of all is the Energy Department’s estimate that we get 80 percent of our energy from fossil fuels – and in 25 years we’ll still be getting 80 percent of our energy from fossil fuels, unless things change.
We need to engage the public with what our energy options actually are. Every form of energy has drawbacks, and every option has tradeoffs – some of which the public may want to make, and some they won’t. This is an issue that calls for public choicework —the process of having citizens weigh the pros and cons of different approaches with the acknowledgement that there is no perfect, cost-free solution. Without that, we’ll just keep saying no, until it’s too late to say yes to anything.