Tuesday, July 29th, 2014 | JEAN JOHNSON
“We, as a country, are just spread way too thin to get involved in anything else . . . “
“I understand the need for world order . . . but it just seems like whenever there is a huge international crisis, the United States is always the first one to run out and open [its] mouth . . . “
“I think we really should focus on this country. We are in such trouble ourselves.”
U.S. Marine Corps via Flickr
This is a sampling of comments from focus groups exploring American attitudes on foreign policy and on the crisis in Ukraine in particular, conducted this spring (before the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17) by the FDR Group and the Kettering Foundation. National polls over the last few years pick up responses similar to those captured above.
According to the Pew Research Center, for example, 8 in 10 say the U.S. should “concentrate more on our own national problems” and “not think so much in international terms.” More than half of Americans want the country to “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own .”
07.16 Defying Expectations
Wednesday, July 16th, 2014 | Isaac Rowlett
Public Agenda is partnering with AAAS to facilitate a series of dialogues between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors throughout the summer. The purpose of the project is to improve dialogue, relationships and collaboration between these two communities, often viewed as staunchly divided. This blog is one in a series from our public engagement team, who write to reflect on their experiences moderating the dialogues. Read more about this project here, and for more information, email Allison Rizzolo.
Small group discussion moderated by Public Agenda.
When I told people that I was headed to LA to facilitate a conversation between evangelical pastors and scientists, most reactions fell somewhere between surprise and cynicism. "Why bother," asked a friend, "when they’re never going to agree on anything anyway?"
But a strange thing happens when you get a small group of people together in a room for a facilitated dialogue: they listen to one another. And instead of trying to persuade the group to support their worldviews, the pastors and scientists each respectfully introduced themselves and explained why they do what they do for a living. Similarities emerged right off the bat: curiosity, compassion and an unyielding search for truth.
It wasn’t long before the conversation took on a lighter tone. One participant, a reproductive biologist, acknowledged the tension in the room as he explained his research: "We already covered religion and politics," he said, "so I figured I’d throw sex in there too."
And there were profound moments as well, like when a scientist explained that he wasn’t 100 percent certain of anything, and that all scientific theories exist only until proven false. "What you just said makes me feel safe," a pastor replied, "because many of the scientists I know seem so definite in their beliefs, so I don’t feel comfortable expressing my faith."
Three hours later the group had hammered out areas of common ground and ideas for next steps to foster collaboration between the two communities. But more importantly, the conversations continued well past the end of the formal discussion. Most participants lingered in the room and talked, exchanging contact information and discussing how to keep the conversation going.
As a facilitator, it was humbling to witness a group of people overcome significant differences to explore how to work together to improve their community. Let’s hope that they can continue to defy expectations and set an example for the rest of us.
06.22 A Divided Nation?
Sunday, June 22nd, 2014 | WILL FRIEDMAN, PH.D.
Reprinted from The New York Times - June 22, 2014
To the Editor:
Re “Dangerous Divisiveness,” by Charles M. Blow (column, June 16):
While the uptick in partisanship documented by the Pew Research Center is significant, so is the fact that the vast majority of Americans (almost 8 in every 10) are not ideologically divided.
People become much more willing to compromise when thinking about how to solve real problems in their own communities. There is no reason to panic over an ideological rupture; the sky isn’t falling — yet. Even among Americans who do hold consistently liberal or conservative views, this adherence often falls away quickly.
If our national leaders and the news media continue to emphasize partisan bickering, the upward trend in partisanship could accelerate and harden. This would mean that addressing issues in our communities could become just as difficult as on Capitol Hill.
Those who are working to build common ground among people with political differences should not be dissuaded by this new research. Rather, now more than ever, they should get to work.
Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 | JEAN JOHNSON
Except for kids themselves, just about everyone wants children to eat more fruits and vegetables. Even so, there’s plenty of disagreement about what government can or should do to make that happen.
For First Lady Michelle Obama, federal standards for more nutritious school lunches help “parents who are working hard to serve their kids balanced meals at home and don’t want their efforts undermined during the day at school.” But for critics, these standards are a costly and counterproductive example of government interference. They ask why “the federal government should make these decisions rather than parents, students and local school officials.”
The school lunch dispute is one of several that have emerged when governments -- federal, state, and local -- move beyond their traditional role of providing nutrition education and try to take stronger steps to combat the country’s rising obesity rates.
What’s Government’s Role?
Thursday, June 5th, 2014 | Allison Rizzolo
Word that the federal administration intends to create a grading system for colleges has unnerved college leaders and set off a maelstrom of debate. But all of the arguments cast out by both supporters and naysayers lack a key consideration: for some students, at least, the data behind the proposed grading system just aren't meaningful.
The college grading system ostensibly aims to help prospective students make better choices about where to attend school. Ultimately, grades would be used to allocate federal student loans and grants. The system would be based on factors including how many students graduate from the college, how much debt they accrue, and what alumni earn.
But prospective students we surveyed last year - many of whom are underserved by the traditional college system - did not immediately understand how these sorts of data relate to their own chances for success in college and in the work force. In fact, just about half of the students we surveyed think statistics like a college's graduation rate, loan default rate, or the types of jobs and salaries that average graduates get is "essential" information to know during college searches.
Thursday, May 29th, 2014 | WILL FRIEDMAN, PH.D.
Reprinted from The Chronicle of Higher Education - March 17, 2014
A meaningful and fair gainful-employment rule is an important first step in protecting students from unscrupulous higher-education providers (““Gainful Employment: What’s New? What’s Missing? And To Whom Does That Matter?” The Chronicle, March 17). Higher-education leaders and policymakers should also pursue a complementary strategy that gives students themselves more agency as consumers.
As it stands, many students are not discerning when it comes to choosing a college. Just four in 10 students who currently attend either a for-profit or community college considered more than one college before deciding where to enroll. Many prospective students also don’t consider data like graduation or loan-default rates to be essential when selecting a college.
Even the best-designed gainful-employment rule may contain loopholes that leave students vulnerable. Further, regulations will take some time to implement, and colleges will have a couple of years to adjust their programs found not up to par.
Providing students with the best opportunity for a financially and professionally stable future will require both top-down and bottom-up efforts. By engaging students more deeply on college choice and quality data, they will gain the knowledge and understanding they need to become informed and responsible decision makers.
Thursday, May 15th, 2014 | Allison Rizzolo
In an effort to limit predatory behavior and poor performance among career colleges, the federal government is seeking to enact new regulations on the sector. The regulations, known as the gainful employment rule, would affect a large number of for-profit colleges.
With the public comment period on gainful employment due to close on May 26th, we're hearing a lot from advocates - including students - on either side of the issue.
This is typical when it comes to public debate on divisive policy - the strongest, most passionate voices are the ones we hear from most. This tends to paint a very black-and-white, polarized picture. Outside of the influence of advocacy and persuasion, what do average students of for-profit colleges have to say about their schools?
Thursday, April 24th, 2014 | Megan Rose Donovan
How much do average Americans care about public issues like health care?
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s index, less than half of Americans were closely following news coverage of Affordable Care Act enrollment - a surprising figure given its headline dominance.
That number looks even starker compared to the more than three-quarters of Americans that said they "very" or "fairly closely" followed coverage of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.
These numbers alone don't reveal why so many of us seem disinterested in following health care policy, though in many ways the disinterest is understandable. At the same time, we believe there is immense potential to ignite meaningful public conversation about solutions on out-of-control health care spending.
One reason for the public's lack of interest may be our lack of agency when it comes to health care policy. As our co-founder Daniel Yankelovich wrote, “From the perspective of experts, the public has nothing to contribute to strategic policy thinking and has been effectively left out of the conversation.”
Thursday, April 17th, 2014 | JEAN JOHNSON
Bill Gates and the U.S. Army back it, along with a whole slew of educational associations, business leaders and think tanks. And despite the partisanship we often see in politics today, the development and adoption of the new, voluntary Common Core learning standards in literacy and math got off to an amazing start. Set in motion in 2009 by an alliance of Republican and Democratic governors, Common Core standards were quickly adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.
Cyrus McCrimmon/ Denver Post/ Getty Images
So how did an idea that started off with such impressive support become so controversial?
A wide range of critics, including some parents, teachers, education experts, Tea Party activists and liberal groups have begun pushing back against the Common Core — or at least the way it’s being implemented. One state, Indiana, has already dropped the standards, and other states are considering doing so as well.
In surveys, most people seem open to the general idea of national standards and guidelines for learning. A 2010 study from Public Agenda showed that about 8 in 10 parents see having national standards in math and science as helpful. A new survey from the education reform group Achieve shows that 69 percent of voters support implementation of Common Core when presented with a description of it. And support is even stronger among African-Americans, Hispanics, and "public school moms."
But the Achieve study also exposes a fault line. Just 16 percent of voters have read or heard "a lot" about the Common Core; and, among those who have, about 4 in 10 oppose it. Analysts at Achieve say the growing controversy is "leaving a more negative 'impression' among voters." Surveys from Education Next-Harvard PEPG showed that the percent of people opposed to the Core nearly doubled between 2012 and 2013.
A closer look at public and parent thinking suggests some additional reasons why the Common Core hasn’t been attracting more robust support. Consider:
Monday, April 7th, 2014 | Megan Rose Donovan
Earlier this semester, a group of transfer students gathered in room 3-190 at Baruch College to read and discuss approaches to creating, consuming and conserving energy sources. First, students read through a Choicework discussion guide, which outlined the debates about energy production and consumption. Then, they immediately dove into a lively conversation about their visions to address energy issues in the future.
These group discussions are part of a semester-long seminar to help transfer students acclimate to student life at Baruch. Over the course of ten weeks, students come together to discuss their transition and receive support and advice on the many facets of college life. They also spend six sessions sharing their perspectives with fellow students about three social issues that may hit close to home: jobs and the economy, immigration and energy. Their discussions are framed with tailored versions of our Citizens' Solutions Guides.
We've heard about and been troubled by the hurdles college students face when continuing their education at a new institution. The sessions at Baruch are part of an effort to see how group dialogue on politicized social issues can help transfer students build community while also conveying the mission of their new institution. What we’ve seen so far is more than just acclimatization – it’s collaborative problem solving and community building.