Thursday, November 17th, 2016 | Erin Knepler
With Donald Trump's win last week, I found myself uncertain about what the results of the presidential election mean for higher education. I share this feeling with many of my higher education peers. The uncertainty is not due to a lack of curiosity. Rather, the president-elect hasn’t really talked in detail about his higher education plans. In fact, the first time he referenced the issue on the campaign trail was during a rally in Columbus, Ohio on October 13, 2016, less than a month before the election.
As he now prepares for the presidency, President-Elect Trump's higher education plans and policy initiatives need to be fleshed out. While details remain hazy, he’s given a few indications on his transition website and during rallies regarding what he’d pursue.
Specifically, Trump has indicated on his transition website he would like to work towards lifting or softening regulations from the U.S. Department of Education that inhibit innovation. He also suggested that he and his administration will integrate technology enriched delivery models in an effort to make higher education options more affordable and accessible for students. And during the October rally, he’s indicated support for income-based student loan repayments.
While these approaches, on face-value, sound positive and could potentially receive bipartisan support, no additional details are provided on his transition website. It’s hard to further speculate on what a well thought-out, operationalized plan would look like. And it's therefore hard to assess the merit of these proposals.
Still, given our deep background in higher education, I wanted to explore what these paths mean for the students, faculty, administrators and taxpayers they would affect.
Tuesday, November 15th, 2016 | Allison Rizzolo
Welcome to Public Agenda's new website! We invite you to take some time to explore, and we hope you find the content engaging and informative.
Now more than ever, it is critical for us to work toward a democracy that answers to the needs and concerns of all Americans.
As a communications hub for our work, we hope our new website will advance our goals by elevating a diversity of voices, enabling common ground, improving dialogue and collaboration, and ultimately contributing to progress on critical issues.
As a resource for those helping to further our mission, we also hope our new site will help visitors understand our goals and strategies, provide them with tools and knowledge and encourage them to learn more about the issues central to our democracy.
The website is designed to meet a few objectives:
- We seek to tell the story of our work and convey our impacts on the issues that hold democracy together, including education, health care, economic opportunity and governance. We work on a lot of different issues, and we use a lot of different tools – opinion research, dialogue and facilitation, leadership training and others. We aim to help you better understand what we're ultimately striving toward: a democracy that works for everyone.
- We know many of you come to our site to find resources you use in your own work, including opinion data and discussion guides. Our new site makes those resources even more accessible while also allowing you to discover new resources you may not have been aware of.
- If you're visiting our site, you likely care about the same issues we do. Our new site makes it easier for you to find ways to take action and help fuel progress on our nation's critical issues.
This will be a dynamic site, with new reports, resources, blog posts, comments and news posted regularly. We hope you will visit again.
It is also a responsive design, meaning you can view it just as easily on your phone or tablet as on a laptop or desktop.
Thank you for your interest in Public Agenda!
11.11 Engaging Ideas - 11/11
Friday, November 11th, 2016 | Public Agenda
Every week we curate stories and reports on complex issues. This week: Looking forward towards a democracy that works for everyone. Horserace polling, the tempting treat that missed the mark. How to talk politics with your enemy, plus what the election means for health care, K12 and higher education policies.
a Democracy that Works for Everyone (On the Agenda)
Public Agenda President Will Friedman comments on the 2016 election and our work moving forward: We stand more committed than ever to doing our part to build a democracy that works for everyone.
how the next president can start healing America.
Dan Glickman, Former Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture and a Senior Fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Institute, writes: The public should not tolerate four more years of gridlock, no matter who wins on November 8. So what should the next White House administration and the 115th Congress do to rebuild its standing in the eyes of the American people? First, the next president should create a cabinet with a diversity of political views to represent both the left, right and middle.
Public Opinion/ Polling
Race Polling: Resist the Sweet Treat (Medium)
PA alumna Amber Ott writes: In the aftermath of yesterday's election, we are reminded what happens when the horse race? - even when scrutinized using sophisticated technology, big data and modeling? - overshadows everything else. As we wrote in February, polls are not designed to be predictive. They capture a moment in time, and things can happen between a survey and election day, including a shift in the electorate itself. Uncovering the values that underlie candidate preference is what makes public opinion research meaningful. Effective campaigns use this information to craft coherent strategies. Today, many wish we better understood the forces that propelled Mr. Trump to victory. Going forward, let’s dedicate ourselves not just to understanding these forces but also communicating the right and wrong ways to use public opinion research.
experts try to explain how the polls missed Donald Trump’s victory (Vox)
Trump drew many new believers into the political process for the first time; the likely voter screens appear to have assumed that they would not actually show up to vote on Tuesday. As a result, polls with strong likely voter screens may have underestimated his strength. Trump’s victory was missed by basically everybody in the polling industry. And that sets up a question: How did the pollsters so badly whiff on an election with such high stakes? The dust is still settling, but I talked to seven experts in political science and polling for their responses. Here’s what I learned.
Thursday, November 10th, 2016 | WILL FRIEDMAN, PH.D.
Photo: Jnn13 | Wikipedia
Reflecting on this confusing and tumultuous election season, at least one thing has become clear: Millions of Americans feel unheard, unseen and disregarded. They do not trust traditional politics to represent them, and they want a greater say in the decisions that affect their lives.
The election has shown how critically important it is to bridge the divides among leaders and the public, to make sure that people have a voice and that their voices are heard, to foster better public conversations that inform wiser public decisions, to create enough common ground and collaboration that we make progress on our most critical problems.
These tasks are the work of Public Agenda, along with our partners, allies and supporters. We stand more committed than ever to doing our part to build a democracy that works for everyone.
Tuesday, November 8th, 2016 | Allison Rizzolo
Whatever the outcome of today, it's been clear for a while that the public is seeking a greater voice in the decisions that affect them, both locally and nationally. And it's not just the public. Elected officials are frustrated with the state of public engagement as well, as we saw firsthand in a 2012 project with California officials.
As such, many public officials are experimenting with new ways to connect with their constituents and involve them in decision making. One of the most promising new processes is participatory budgeting, or PB, which enables residents to directly decide how to spend public money.
PB started in Brazil and came to the United States in 2009, when one ward in Chicago used the process. In 2015-2016, 47 cities or city council districts in the U.S. and Canada used PB. Recent numbers show that in 2014-15 alone, over 70,000 people voted on how to spend $43 million through PB.
We were curious to see what elected officials had to say about PB, so we asked, in a series of 43 confidential interviews with elected officials across the country, 28 of whom had used PB and 15 who had not.
We wanted to know: What motivated them to try it? Did it help improve their relationship with constituents? What were the other benefits and challenges they encountered? Last week, we released the results of these in the report, "Let the People Decide: Elected Officials on Participatory Budgeting."
11.04 Engaging Ideas - 11/4
Friday, November 4th, 2016 | Public Agenda
Every week we curate stories and reports on complex issues. This week: Articles on the effect scandals have on polling and what connecting research and policy can do to reduce inequality. A voter’s guide to the Nov. 8th education policy stakes. What 12 state schools are cutting, or creating, to ease cost burden on students. A look at an initiative on California’s ballot that may have important implications for drug pricing and policy nationwide.
charts make painfully simple how American politics became so messed up
With less than a week to go until the election, the country has descended into full partisan battle mode.
Case Against Democracy (The New Yorker)
Caleb Crain writes: If most voters are uninformed, who should make decisions about the public’s welfare?
“What Works” (Stanford Social Innovation Review)
There is an urgent need to expand the infrastructure for results-based policymaking at all levels of the US government.
media has utterly failed to convey the policy stakes in the election (Vox)
Millions of Americans would love some or all of these changes, and millions of others would hate them. But most of all, the vast majority of Americans would simply be confused. Someone who’d been following the election moderately closely — scanning headlines, watching cable news, and tuning in to debates — would simply have no idea that this sweeping shift in American public policy is in the offing if Trump wins. Nor would they have any real sense of what the more modest shift in public policy that would emerge from a Clinton win would look like. Beneath the din of email coverage and the mountains of clichés about populism, the mass-market media has simply failed to convey what’s actually at stake in the election.
Thursday, November 3rd, 2016 | Public Agenda
Many in the United States have felt for some time that our elected officials don't put the public's concerns first. Now, years of diminishing trust in government and a growing divide between elites and the public have culminated in 2016: a growing, rarely productive populism and a divisive election season here in the United States.
While this year has been tumultuous and confusing, it also represents a crossroads. Can we harness the growing populism and cultivate a more meaningful, productive public conversation and a more engaged, informed public?
We'll be exploring this and other questions during our upcoming policy breakfast, Can the Public Have a Real Voice in American Politics?
The event takes place the morning of November 17th, after the election. We'll know who our next president will be. But we'll have a lot more questions to explore.
Tuesday, November 1st, 2016 | Allison Rizzolo
This election, light on the issues and heavy on hyperbole, has not helped our collective civic education and dialogue. Many would argue it's even been harmful or poisonous.
But if we hope to find common ground on and address our trickiest problems, we must educate ourselves on the issues and have civil dialogue, even with those we don't see eye-to-eye with.
Last week, we invited you to participate in #TextTalk2016, our election-season effort to generate better in-person conversations. This week, we want to share some resources to help you both learn about and engage civilly on topics ranging from climate change to the teaching profession to immigration. These resources are all what we call Choicework discussion guides.
The Choicework technique enables people to transcend ideology and partisanship, cultivates empathy and helps people move away from wishful thinking to weigh the pros and cons of policy approaches.
You can be the start of a better, more civil conversation! Download and read the below guides, learn about the issues, share them with friends, family and colleagues, and use them to spark a conversation in person or on social media.
10.28 Engaging Ideas - 10/28
Friday, October 28th, 2016 | Public Agenda
Every week we curate stories and reports on complex issues. This week: A reading list for those trying to make sense of the state of American politics. The New York Times follows three seniors from Topeka High School in Kansas as they journey towards college. What can an emergency loan can do for a student close to graduation? Lessons from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Academy Health's work to generate and disseminate rigorous research that informs and strengthens health policy.
Reading Guide for Those in Despair About American Politics (The
Nearly three dozen book recommendations to help make sense of the state of U.S. democracy, from academics, comedians, activists and more.
liberal sociologist learned from spending five years in Trump's America (Vox)
Hochschild is trying to do something different — to see if it’s possible for a liberal to empathize with Trump supporters. It doesn’t end with a grand theory or a prescription for how to bring America together or help Democrats win elections or anything like that. It’s mostly a book about listening — a rarity in American politics.
to Trump: Enough With the Hellhole Talk, Already
Two weeks before Election Day, mayors can’t get anyone to pay attention to good news. And there really is some.
social media creates angry, poorly informed partisans (Vox)
Social media sites like Facebook have democratized the media landscape, allowing anyone to create and distribute content to their friends and family. There are a lot of good things about this, but it’s also proving to have a serious downside: Without the quality filters traditionally supplied by mainstream media outlets, there’s a lot more room for total nonsense to circulate widely. The increasing polarization of news through social media allows liberals and conservatives to live in different versions of reality. And that’s making it harder and harder for our democratic system to function.
Alderman Joe Moore to Host Premier Screening of Documentary Film ‘Count Me In’
on October 30 (eNews Park Forest)
At a time when voter frustration is mounting, there’s finally a good news story about money and voting: ’Count Me In’ highlights an innovative experiment in direct democracy that gives ordinary Chicagoans direct say over local public projects and monies. Pioneered in Chicago, participatory budgeting is rapidly spreading across the country and even the White House recently made it one of its key recommendations for open government. ‘Count Me In’ tells the compelling stories of regular Chicagoans who are rolling up their sleeves to make an impact in their neighborhoods. The film shows residents pitch ideas for street repairs, bike lanes, or community gardens. Projects get researched, proposals crafted, and at the end, the entire community is invited to vote.
Thursday, October 27th, 2016 | Public Agenda
Photo: Jnn13 | Wikipedia
Public Agenda is in the middle of a move to Brooklyn, so no new content for the blog today. However, we wanted to take the opportunity to share some posts from the past that we hope will make you feel more optimistic about our country’s future during an unsettling election season.
We also invite you to help transform the civic discourse by participating in #TextTalk2016, an initiative to stimulate a more civil, informed and engaged conversation about the issues that matter.
Revitalizing Democracy, Community by Community
At the level of national politics, the American democracy is in clear crisis. Rampant gridlock and partisan bickering undermine progress and earn the mistrust and frustration of the populace. Fortunately, a better story is unfolding in many local settings.
Less Divided than We Look
Certainly, there is some evidence in the Pew research of a hardening of positions among the ideologically minded, and we don't deny that there are important disagreements among the American public. Still, this evidence does illustrate that common ground is not only attainable but, on many counts, already exists.
Participatory Budgeting's Promise for Democracy
We have much to learn, but what we already know is that this approach to decision-making holds great promise for our democracy and for the civic health of our communities.
With Dialogue, People's Opinions Can Change and Do Stick
Engaging in dialogue – which is more of a personal exchange rather than debate – with someone who has views and experiences different from your own causes both you and your conversation partner to examine perceptions and assumptions. It humanizes those different views and experiences and softens tightly-held or extreme opinions. Often, such experiences cause people's opinions to shift more quickly than they would otherwise. And these opinion shifts tend to hold.
Fixing Politics by Strengthening Networks for Engagement
David Brooks is right that strengthening the web of community networks can help fix politics, at every level of government. There are practical ways to do this – this is a matter for policy, law, cross-sector collaboration, and long-term planning. We should be proactive, and think constructively, about how we want our democracy to work.