All Feeds

Will Too Much Debt Fuel A Double-Dip Recession?

Francie Grace — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:33:22 -0500

That was the question raised by President Obama during an interview in China (one of our biggest creditors), as cartoonists seized the opportunity to comment on America's looming national debt. "It is important," said Mr. Obama, "to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

More pressure on this issue is coming from the newly unveiled $848 billion Senate health care bill, which includes a number of tax increases, and is estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to have the potential to slash federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade.

Some lawmakers aren't so sure. The Washington Post quotes Sen. Judd Gregg (R, NH) as saying the bill "may claim to be deficit-neutral, [but] it uses sleight-of-hand budgetary tricks by assuming unrealistic tax increases and Medicare cuts that members of Congress will not be willing to follow through on."

Where do you stand? There's never been a more important time to keep up with the issues and let policymakers know your views on which options they should pursue. To learn more, compare the health care proposals and check out the Citizen's Survival Kit and FacingUp.org, our web site and curriculum dedicated to helping citizens get the facts and participate in solutions to America's federal budget deficit and national debt problem.

College and high school students have yet another opportunity to get involved and have their voices heard, by participating in our Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances contest for essays and video presentations on the deficit and national debt. There are prizes of $500 each for the best entries, which are due by December 11th; click here for details.

Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances is made possible by a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Will a Delay on the Climate Treaty be Time Well-Spent?

Scott Bittle — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:27:21 -0500

World leaders flatly admitted this weekend what everyone pretty much knew: there won't be a major deal on climate change at the big conference in Copenhagen next month. Instead, leaders will try to keep the process going, in hopes of coming up with a deal next year.

It's no surprise. For one thing, the U.S. Senate, still consumed with health care, has pushed off dealing with a climate bill until next year, and other countries won't move on this issue until the United States does. But it's also true that China and India, huge players on this issue, haven't stepped up either. The overall question of whether rich industrial countries are willing to help developing countries "grow green" is another basic sticking point. It's not all about us.

So now the Obama administration has bought time. How are they going to spend it?

If they're smart, they're not going to just work on the details of the climate bill and a potential treaty. They'll use it to build public support.

The fundamental problem is this: Americans, and the rest of the world, get our energy from fossil fuels that are likely to get increasingly scarce and expensive, predominantly come from unstable parts of the world, and cause global warming. And world energy demand is projected to explode over the next 20 years, as people in the developing world start living as well as we do.

So we need both more energy and different energy to stay ahead. That means making fundamental decisions about how Americans get fuel and electricity. But is the public ready to make those choices?

Not entirely.

It's true that Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve survey found there's a lot of common ground on energy, with no less than ten different proposals getting widespread public support. But it's also true that four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel, and half can't name a renewable energy source.

That means Americans are open to change, but may not understand the implications of the choices they're being asked to make. That problem can be solved. If we lay out the options fairly, with an honest assessment of the pros and cons, then the country can move forward and make decisions with solid public support.

That's how leaders should be spending the time they've bought. Because if they don't spend that time wisely, it's not at all certain the public will buy what they're selling.

Listening To Young Americans On The Deficit

Francie Grace — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:12:12 -0500

You wouldn't think the bottom line on the $1.6 trillion federal budget deficit and $11.9 trillion national debt crisis could be summed up in a single sentence, but when the right words whizzed by, the Wall Street Journal's David Wessel was quick to point them out. Words to remember, in a speech by Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office: "The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services."

These words underscore the fact that no matter how complicated and increasingly urgent this problem is, it is one which can be understood by most Americans – who can then consider, debate, and decide on options for the best way to reduce the deficit before its sheer weight makes many decisions for us.

Through PublicAgenda.org, FacingUp.org and our Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances interactive curriculum for college students, we've been helping people understand the problem, why it matters, and how to get involved in the process of charting a path to fiscal health. This fall, we extended the reach of the Facing Up curriculum to include high school and middle school students, who have been using our learning materials as part of the University of Virginia's Youth Leadership Initiative program.

Through that partnership, we also got a chance to hear more about how young people feel about the fiscal crisis which is shaping all of our futures. In a mock election held to give students a chance to speak out on a range of issues, 77 percent favored a balanced budget; an increase in the age for Social Security eligibility was supported by 64 percent; and increasing payroll taxes was favored by 53 percent. Reducing Social Security benefits was opposed by 69 percent.

We'll be hearing a lot more about these issues beginning on Monday, when we start accepting entries for the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances contest for students, with $500 prizes for the best essays and best multimedia presentations on the federal budget deficit and national debt and what ought to be done about it. The contest has two divisions - one for college students, and another for high school students – and all will have a chance to comment on and discuss each other's ideas.

December 11 is the entry deadline; click here to see the full contest rules. Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances, a nonpartisan curriculum available at FacingUp.org, is available to users free of charge thanks to a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

The Energy Debate We Should Be Having

Peiting Chen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:30:05 -0500

Reprinted from forbes.com

By Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson

The recent Senate hearings on the Boxer-Kerry climate bill were a discouraging, dispiriting example of U.S. policymakers once again avoiding any serious discussion of the nation's energy future. Most of the senators seemed more interested in airing their talking points than in finding a consensus for progress. Politics trumped deliberation. Partisanship defeated the common good. Two other Senate committees are taking up the bill this week, but there's no indication that they'll be more productive.

You might say this is politics as usual. But questions about how the country gets and uses energy now and in the next few decades are hardly trivial. How should we address the global threat of climate change? How can we compete with the Chinese and the Indians for ever scarcer supplies of oil? How are we possibly going to produce enough energy of any kind to meet the expected 50% increase in world demand over the next 20 years?

The questions are tough, but there are actually quite a number of answers. True, none of them comes without some cost or trade-off, but the options on energy are a lot better than the country's options in Afghanistan. And whereas no one knows exactly how to get the country's job machine producing jobs again, there are practical, workable ideas on the table that could vastly improve the country's chances of having reliable, environmentally sound energy at reasonable, non-stratospheric prices.

That is, of course, if we make some decisions relatively soon. If we postpone them for another decade, they may get quite a bit tougher.

How exactly have our elected leaders in Washington responded to an urgent but eminently solvable challenge? The Republicans boycotted last week's environment committee vote, saying they wanted more information before they were willing to talk and condemning the legislation at hand without offering any specific, serious alternative. The Democrats, divided among themselves, voted the bill forward anyway, potentially poisoning the chances for any bipartisan problem-solving.

In any case, no fewer than five other Senate committees have a piece of the legislation, and independent of them there is an attempt underway to build a consensus among moderates. The most serious deal-making appears to be behind-the-scenes horse-trading, where senators work to see what they can bring home for their states.

If you love tactical maneuvering as much as our political leaders do, Politico's Web site has an energy and environment page that's enough to make you weep. Just skimming the headlines tells you how little of the discussion is really about solving America's energy problems and how much is about positioning each party for the next election.

Yes, the business world and individual citizens are moving forward on energy in ways that don't depend on our politicians. Entrepreneurs are plunging ahead by investing in alternative energy, cleaner fossil fuels, building greener buildings and getting new kinds of cars to market. But business can't do it alone. Ask anyone in the utilities business how big a role government plays in their decision-making. As much as the free market has to offer, the government is the biggest player here, and much of what business does will depend on what government puts on the table.

So if they weren't obsessed with tactics, what could our political leaders talk about? There are a handful of fundamental questions that need to be settled. They're not as complicated as they sound:

--What are the best options for producing electricity affordably without doing in the planet? You can count on your fingers the options available right now for producing electricity in quantity--coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar and geothermal--and the last three are only tiny slices of our current power supply. All of them have pros and cons; each of them would require a different strategy to make it viable as a clean energy source for the future. We have to make long-term commitments here, because the power plants we build today will be in service for decades. We need to place our bets.

--What's the best way to reduce the country's over-reliance on oil and coal: the cap-and-trade approach on the table or a straight-out carbon tax? Cap and trade is complex, to be sure (and nearly impossible to explain in 50 words or less), but it has worked remarkably well at reducing acid-rain emissions. On the other hand, business leaders like Caterpillar ( CAT - news - people ) Chief Executive James Owen and FedEx ( FDX - news - people ) CEO Fred Smith have voiced their preference for a tax, which they believe would be clearer, fairer and less bureaucratic. Which approach would work better is an honorable and important debate to have.

--What are the real possibilities for green jobs? If we move away from coal and oil, are we going to be able to replace the jobs lost in refineries and mining with employment installing wind turbines and solar panels?

--How are we going to fuel our vehicles? Do we stick with something we pump into our tanks, like oil, ethanol or natural gas, or do we move to electricity? Both have huge implications for our national infrastructure. Designing the cars is one thing; having enough natural gas pumps or battery recharging stations to give drivers confidence that they can find fuel when they need it is quite another.

People will say it's impossible to have discussions like these without getting mired in ideological battles over the role of government or regressing into the same-old-same-old debates on global warming. But utilities across the country are talking about these issues, as are major businesses, including the oil companies. In fact, fairly soon the term "oil company" will be a quaint relic. All the major oil companies are increasingly diversified.

Political decisions set the stage, but in the end it's the business world that's going to make our energy future work or fail. Right now, business may have another equally important role to play: sending a strong message to leaders that it's way past time to stop the politicking, make some decisions and get a move on. The most dangerous outcome for business, and for the American people altogether, would be another decade of delay and uncertainty. That's the one outcome the nation really cannot afford.

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson are the authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis. Bittle is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org and Web site director for PBS' Planet Forward. Johnson is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org.

Where are the Swing Voters on the Climate Bill?

Peiting Chen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:19:46 -0500

Reprinted from 800ceoread

By Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson

As the Senate environment committee starts to hold hearings on the climate change bill, we think there’s one critical question for the senators: Who are you talking to?

That’s not an obvious question, or an (entirely) sardonic one. Legislation is almost always shaped more by leaders and lobbyists rather than the public at large, and given the complexity of the climate bill that’s even more true here.

But you can’t solve the climate change problem if the public isn’t ready to accept some level of change. In the end, this is an argument about how we get the energy to fuel the life Americans want to live. You can’t change the energy picture without getting the public to reconsider where our energy comes from and what practical alternatives there are for developing a more climate-friendly mix. If too many Americans believe there’s an easy, cost-free answer out there, or conversely, if too many believe that we can’t tackle our climate problems without destroying the American way of life, we’re not going to get very far.

Right now, too many Americans are heading into this fight unarmed. Four in ten Americans can’t name a fossil fuel, according to Public Agenda’s Energy Learning Curve survey. Even more can’t name a renewable energy source. It’s a fair assumption that most people aren’t going to understand the ins and outs of the climate bill.

What’s worse is that most don’t understand the fundamental challenge here: that the world needs to change the kind of energy we use, even as we need more and more of it. World energy demand is projected to rise 50 percent over the next 20 years, mostly because hundreds of millions of people in China, India and the developing world will be buying cars and living better lives. Production of fossil fuels, particularly oil, is going to have trouble keeping up with that demand anyway. And even if we could meet that demand with fossil fuels, we’d end up with irreversible climate change.

But there is a coalition to be built here, if you talk to the right people in the right way.

When our organization, Public Agenda, conducted its Energy Learning Curve survey of Americans, we found they fell naturally into four broad categories: the Anxious (40 percent), the Greens (24 percent), the Disengaged (19 percent) and the Climate Change Doubters (17 percent).

The Greens, as you can imagine, are probably at a 350.org rally right now, the Doubters are still chanting “drill baby drill,” and the Disengaged are watching the playoffs instead. The most interesting group—and the most significant—are the Anxious. They don’t know much about energy issues, but they know enough to be worried. Almost all of this group worries “a lot” about the cost of energy (91 percent); They report higher levels of worry than the other groups on scarcity and on increased worldwide demand for oil. Global warming is a lesser concern, but even here 69 percent say it’s real and 54 percent say they worry “a lot” about it.

Most importantly, the Anxious are the largest single group, at 40 percent. They’re the “swing voters” of this issue, and you can’t build a majority without them.

A lot of environmentalists seem convinced that the key to success is making everyone else as concerned about climate change as they are. That’s no help in persuading the Anxious; they’re already worried about it and convinced it’s real. Making sure there’s enough energy to go around, and at a price that people can afford, are even more important to this group.

So what’s the takeaway here? There are two key points:

Back to basics: We’ve been doing a lot of work to educate the public on energy (in fact, we’ve just written a book on the subject). And one thing we’ve learned is you can’t assume people know the fundamentals. And we’re not talking about the science of global warming here. We’re talking about the fact that there’s a relatively short list of options that can provide the energy we need in the volume we need. Right now, 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and only 2 percent from wind and solar combined. Given that, we have some practical choices to make here, and in our experience, people are pretty good at making them, if you lay them out and are honest about the pros and cons. Plus, a little information up front can head off a lot of misinformation later on, as the health care reform advocates found out to their dismay.

Speak to people’s real concerns. People can approach a problem from entirely different perspectives and still end up at the same place. The Anxious are actually strongly supportive of alternative energy, ranging from ethanol to solar, and they strongly favor conservation over exploration. So do the Greens. But the rationales are different—Greens favor alternative energy because it’s clean; the Anxious favor it because they want to stretch the supply.

The groups who will play a major role at the Senate hearings—cabinet officers, environmentalists, businesses—are all critical. But the public matters, too. If we let the concerns of lobbyists and policy experts drive this debate, we’ll never build the coalition needed to move forward.

Then, if the lights go out, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

Author Bios

Scott Bittle, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.

Jean Johnson, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org, and has written articles and op-eds for USA Today, Education Week, School Board News, Educational Leadership, and the Huffington Post Website.

For additional energy resources and supplemental material, please visit www.whoturnedoutthelights.org

Even If They're Right, the Superfreakonomics Guys Only Have Half an Answer

Peiting Chen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:56:02 -0500

Reprinted from The Huffington Post

By Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson

The argument by the Superfreakonomics authors that we should try "geoengineering" our way out of global warming seems to be a Rorschach test for the blogosphere: if you're the "drill, baby, drill" type, you love it ; if you're an environmentalist, you hate it. Or, maybe it depends on a flash reaction, whether ideas like pumping sulfur into the atmosphere to compensate for the carbon dioxide that's causing global warming strikes you as something you'd hear about from Albert Einstein or from MacGruber on Saturday Night Live.

We'll come right out and say it: we don't know if it would work or not. (There are a lot of thoughtful examinations of that question summed up here). But even if geoengineering works magnificently to cool down the Earth (and right now, that's definitely an "if"), it's only half of a solution to our energy problems.

Right now, human beings depend on fossil fuels for energy -- they account for 80 percent of all energy use in the United States alone. And that presents two problems. One is global warming driven by the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pumped out when we use fossil fuels. Number two is that there just isn't enough energy to meet world demand, which is projected to jump 50 percent in the next 20 years. And no, it's not just the energy-guzzling American lifestyle. Most of the increase will come from people around the world rising out of poverty and phenomenal economic growth in countries like India and China.

So even if geoengineering solved the first half of that problem, it wouldn't solve the second.

Some of the people who have embraced geoengineering seem to see it as a way of addressing global warming without having to change how we use energy. No need to get off fossil fuels. No need for cap-and-trade, or an energy tax. No need for conservation or efficiency.

But there are two grim facts about fossil fuels. One is that we'll be using them for a long time -- even the most optimistic projections see the United States and the world still primarily using fossil fuels for the next two decades. They are the world's energy default setting.

The other is that fossil fuels, particularly oil, are a finite resource. Demand for oil, in particular, is likely to outstrip production over the next 20 years, according to respected sources like the International Energy Agency. That's because people in China, India and other parts of the developing world are reaching the point where they can afford to drive, and they want those cars. We have more options when it comes to generating electricity, but demand for that is going up as well. There are 1.6 billion people on this planet who don't have electricity today, and over the next two decades, a lot of them are going to get it. You don't have to be an economist to guess what that means. As more people need the energy fossil fuels supply, demand is going to force prices up -- unless we find alternatives.

Then there's the question of U.S. energy security. As long as we continue to rely on oil for almost all our transportation needs, we're going to be relying on foreign supply. The United States imports 60 percent of our oil, and we have about 2.5 percent of the world's proved reserves. Our oil fields are getting old, too. In 1972, the average U.S. oil well produced 18.6 barrels a day; by 2007 it was only producing 10.1 barrels.

By contrast, the Mideast has about 60 percent of remaining oil reserves. You do the math. We could drill more, but there's no way we're going to find enough domestic oil to make up for 60 percent of our needs. The trends simply aren't moving in our favor.

The harsh reality is that even if global warming could be engineered away, we still need to change how we use energy. We'd need to develop all kinds of alternatives just to keep the lights on and our cars on the road at a price our economy could afford. "Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable -- environmentally, economically, socially," said the IEA.

The Superfreakonomics authors say they've defined the problem as "If we need to cool the Earth in a hurry, what is the best way to do it?" And they argue geoengineering is the fastest, cheapest method -- Steven Levitt called it a "band-aid" on the Daily Show. They argue their environmental critics are posing a different question, a moral question, and that's why their book is so controversial.

Fair enough. We're posing a still different question: how do we both avert global warming and still find the energy humanity needs? That deserves an answer, too.

Choices for the Future

Scott Bittle — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:35:00 -0500

You know you're in for a bout of grim reading when the international agency charged with worrying about how we power the planet starts off its fact sheet with a question like this: "Why is our current energy pathway unsustainable?"

That's the message from the International Energy Agency, which issued its World Energy Outlook report, the organization's annual examination of the big picture. That picture itself hasn't changed all that much. The fundamental challenge is still to meet surging worldwide demand for energy while at the same time coming up with ways to avoid global warming and keep energy relatively affordable.

Basically, the IEA says everything depends on whether or not world leaders get serious about climate change, very soon.

If we do nothing, then worldwide energy demand is projected to soar by 40 percent by 2030. The vast majority of that increase is going to come in the developing world, as people in China, India and throughout Asia see their standard of living rise. Even keeping up with that demand would require investing another $26 trillion. And unless things change, most of that energy is going to come from fossil fuels, which means "dire consequences for climate change" and air pollution, the IEA said.

On the other hand, if world leaders committed to fighting climate change with cap-and-trade policies, increased energy efficiency, and greater use of renewable energy, that would cost another $10.5 trillion (on top of the $26 trillion). But energy demand growth could be cut in half, and greenhouse gases would decline.

Not that the prospects for this look particularly good right now. Most observers say hopes for a real deal out of next month's Copenhagen climate conference are fading, one major reason being that the United States still hasn't figured out what it wants to do. There's a chance the Obama administration will put something in place on its own even if Congress doesn't act, but in any case, it's unlikely a deal with be struck without American leadership.

Chances are you've never heard of the IEA. While the agency has enormous influence among policymakers, and while there are bitter disputes over its estimates, it barely registers with the public. But despite the IEA's wonky tone and elite audience, the report has one great strength when it comes to getting the public involved: it focuses on choices and alternatives.

The world has decisions to make about energy. Everything we've learned about how people get engaged in making policy decisions shows that choices are essential. Nothing's perfect, and there are always tradeoffs to everything. Setting those options out fairly to the public is critical to building public support for change.

The IEA actually lays out the cost of those alternatives for policymakers. We can only hope that policymakers will turn around and do the same for the public.

Invitation To A Health Care Reform Dialogue

Francie Grace — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:43:07 -0500

On too many issues, the political discussion provides more heat than light, and the public doesn't have a chance to deliberate over the choices for solving problems. That certainly applies to health care reform, an area in which opinion is split, often in contradictory ways.

A Gallup poll last month found 54 percent who said it's a government responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, and 41 percent who said the opposite. At the same time, 25 percent said they expected to support the final health care bill, 33 percent expected to oppose it, and 39 percent said it all depends on decisions yet to be made about the legislation.

So here's an invitation for citizens to step up and be part of the debate: the National Issues Forum Institute (NIFI) is holding an online deliberation on health care. Here's the link to use to join the deliberation: http://nifi-healthcare.dialoguecircles.com - - you can also forward this URL to colleagues and others who might want to join in, or post it on your Twitter feed or Facebook site. To get ready, you can check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and NIFI's health care workbook, based on research by the Kettering Foundation.

Still Number One

Scott Bittle — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:30:36 -0500

As if anyone needed proof that immigration will remain a major issue, a new international survey reports that some 700 million people worldwide say they would move to another country if they could. Not surprisingly, the largest single group, one-quarter, say their first choice would be to come to the United States.

We can't speak to the view of those overseas, but we can certainly talk about the immigrants who are already here. In our survey of immigrants, A Place to Call Home, we found a powerful endorsement of life in America. More than seven in 10 say that if they could do it all over again, they'd still come to the United States. Just as many say they intend to make the United States their permanent home.

The reasons are simple enough: immigrants buy into American society. Three-quarters say the United States is "a unique country that stands for something special." Strong majorities also rate the U.S. as better than their birth country on a range of dimensions, including making a good living, having a trustworthy legal system and providing education and health care.

With all the ups and downs of our international reputation, with all the challenges we face, people still want to come to America. And the ones who have already come here, want to stay. That's a powerful endorsement – and in fact, you couldn't ask for a better one.

The "Awkward Age" – America's Human Resources Challenge

Francie Grace — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:41:25 -0500

The term used to be applied to early adolescence, but there's a new tricky phase of life: people from their late 50s to late 60s: healthier and longer-lived than previous generations, and many wanting or needing to stay in the workforce. So says Public Agenda's Andrew Yarrow, in a Baltimore Sun Op Ed with a lot of great links to organizations that are helping both older workers and the economy, with job training programs and opportunities for those who'd like to share their experience with others a few years behind them in their careers. Click here to check out the full article.

The new 'awkward age'

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:42:40 -0500

Reprinted from The Baltimore Sun

By Andrew L. Yarrow

Millions between midlife and old age need jobs, security and a new sense of purpose

"The Awkward Age" was a term long applied to early adolescence. Today, for demographic and economic reasons, a new awkward age has emerged in the United States: people from their late 50s to late 60s. They are not "old," as a 65-year-old would have been considered 50 years ago, but they're just beyond midlife. Conventionally, this age group has been seen as on the cusp of retirement or retired, doting on their grandchildren.

Today, the picture no longer fits many of the tens of millions of Americans at this stage of life, who - in our youth-obsessed culture - generally don't think of themselves as old. Americans live 15 years longer than two generations ago. Many at this stage of life need or want to work longer. The challenge for us is both ensuring economic well-being for this rapidly growing population and helping define a new identity and purpose for people who are neither middle-aged nor truly elderly.

Many older Americans want to work or are forced by economic need to do so. Yet, they face disincentives ranging from access to Social Security, private pensions and Medicare to our society's lingering belief that it is "normal" to retire somewhere between 62 and 66 (if not earlier), to forced early retirement and, usually, subtle age discrimination. Social Security reform proposals include raising the full eligibility age, and the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act barred employers from not hiring someone because of their age.

But demographic and employment projections pose huge challenges for this group - challenges that will only accelerate during coming decades. Of the 60 million citizens 55 and over, 25 million work (70 percent of 55-to-64-year-olds and 29 percent of those over 65, compared with 84 percent of people between 25 and 54). Labor force participation for those 65 and older has doubled during the last 15 years, although the rate is still much lower than at the end of World War II, when people died much earlier (and many simply worked until they died).

America is aging and people are healthy and active ever longer, but labor force growth is slowing: Between 2006 and 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the work force will increase by 83 percent among those over 65 and 36 percent among Americans 55 to 64 but barely 2 percent for those between 25 and 54 - and it will continue to decrease among those in their early 20s.

So, what should individuals do during this awkward age? And what do we do as a nation that needs employment to strengthen economic growth? In addition, how do we help these tens of millions of Americans find new identity and meaning for their lives, while ensuring their economic security?

For individuals, the long-term outlook is bleak if they want to work, even though over-55's have experienced less unemployment than younger Americans during this recession. The New America Foundation recently estimated that America needs to create nearly a million jobs a year just to keep pace with population growth, but the ugly truth is that net job creation has been slowing to a crawl, even before the recession. America created jobs between 1990 and 2005 at half the rate that it did during the preceding 15 years. Although employment projections are hotly debated and can be thrown off by unexpected factors, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects job growth to fall by another 50 percent between 2006 and 2016. Other analysts are gloomier.

Huge increases in the over-55 population and job growth heading south don't paint a pretty picture. Do we allow, or force, more older Americans to retire, increasing the burden on an already-strained Social Security system? Do we leave many over-55's with less income, perhaps diminished self-esteem and happiness, and a lot of time on their hands? Doing nothing also would mean lower tax revenues and higher unemployment insurance costs for government, and higher (re)training costs for government and business, and for our other social assistance and insurance programs. What's more, adult children of this "young old" population may have to provide economic support, have their parents move in, and deal with their elders' depression and boredom.

So, what are alternative scenarios for Americans in this awkward age? For starters, government and business could invest much more in older worker training programs and expand existing ones such as the Labor Department's Senior Community Service Employment Program. Private employers and government could be provided tax breaks or subsidies to hire over 55's (ideally, such incentives could be recouped through higher tax revenues). Beyond working as greeters in Wal-Marts - or the better option of embarking on new careers based on unfulfilled lifelong interests - older Americans could help address many pressing national needs, such as looming teacher shortages, caregiving for the very elderly, mentoring the young and providing support for charitable and nonprofit organizations. Many also could be hired part-time for their experience, to train and impart knowledge to younger workers.

IBM has been a leader, with its Transition to Teaching, Bridgestar initiative and FedExperience Pilot Program to provide money and training to help older employees transition into new careers. Other employers should be much less averse to people 55 and older contributing their experience or retooling themselves and starting new careers. Community colleges also have been leaders for older Americans who want to redefine themselves in their careers. Federal initiatives such as the Senior Corps volunteer program could be significantly expanded.

Beyond employment, the broader culture needs to catch up with 21st century America. We may applaud George H.W. Bush for skydiving at 85 or John Glenn for returning to space at 77. Media and advertising encourage older Americans to look, act and think young. Yet, public distaste for the idea of people over 55 starting new careers also needs to change. We need role models in TV, film and other media portraying successful older workers, as well as more older fashion models (such as the woman selling glamour in a recent Dove soap commercial).

Demographic, economic, public policy and cultural factors will continue to influence what American life will be like in this new awkward age. However, we need to recognize the problems and act to provide more choices and opportunities to benefit this rapidly growing segment of the population - and our nation as a whole.

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

The Best Idea Yet on Climate Change

Scott Bittle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:51:59 -0500

At one of the last preliminary meetings leading up to the international climate change conference, a U.N. official called on the diplomats to craft "simple, clear options for politicians" at Copenhagen.

An excellent idea, but they've left it until pretty late in the day. And when they've created these clear options, they might want to let the public in on them, too.

If Public Agenda's work in public engagement has taught us anything, it's that people need options. That's how most people make decisions, by weighing alternatives and considering tradeoffs. And that's what has been missing from much of the debate so far. Most people have been confused more than engaged, and that doesn't help when it comes to making the choices needed: not just whether we switch away from fossil fuels, but to what alternatives, and how quickly?

Those choices might also be useful in Washington, where a Senate committee is supposed to vote on a major climate change bill. But the Democrats are divided and the Republicans may not even show up, so the fate of the bill remains uncertain. This comes back to tradeoffs, too.

Filling in the knowledge gaps and explaining the options for change may be the most important element in solving our energy problems. Because if world leaders still need to have the options laid out before making a decision, imagine how the public feels.

Supporting Teacher Talent

Peiting Chen — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:40:10 -0500

At the same time, only ten percent say student performance on standardized tests would be an "excellent" measure of teacher success.

The findings, which include an exploration of attitudes toward unions, are part of a national study designed to provide a comprehensive and nuanced look at the question of whether different generations bring different aspirations, concerns and perspectives to teaching.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y is the second in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Click here to see the first report in this series, Teaching For A Living: How Teachers See The Profession Today, released on Oct. 19, 2009.

Chilly Reception for Climate Change Bill?

Scott Bittle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:47:56 -0500

The Senate environment committee is supposed to vote on a landmark bill to fight climate change this week. But the legislation's fate is in doubt as Democrats remain divided and Republicans may not even show up. The core of the struggle comes over the crucial part of any proposal to deal with energy and global warming: making tradeoffs. We've got resources to help you work through the choices senators are wrestling with, including Who Turned Out the Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, the new book by Public Agenda's Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson. Click here to learn more.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y

Francie Grace — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:55:25 -0500

New research by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates examining the views of Generation Y teachers shows that 71 percent are open to financial incentives for teachers who consistently work harder and put in more time and effort. Just ten percent say student performance on standardized tests would be an "excellent" measure of teacher success. The study, examining whether different generations bring different aspirations, concerns and perspectives to teaching, is the second in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Young Teachers Assess Old Views and Traditional Methods

Peiting Chen — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:57:52 -0400

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y Charts

Peiting Chen — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:46:33 -0400

Supporting Teacher Talent

Full Report: online at
Learning Point Associates

PowerPoint Presentation (.pdf)

Charts

Survey Questions & Answers

Teaching As A Career Choice

Working Conditions

Success In The Classroom

Proposed Reforms

Teachers' Unions

If I Had My Choice…

Survey Participants: Demographics

Methodology

Funding & Acknowledgements

Download News Release (.pdf)

Charts: The View from Generation Y

The "Supporting Teacher Talent" report examines whether different generations of educators bring different aspirations, concerns, and perspectives to teaching. These charts highlight some of the findings from this study; the full report is available at Learning Point Associates, while full survey results are available here.

Charts From Finding One

1. Majorities of all teachers are open to many forms of differentiated pay

2. Gen Y teachers are more likely to believe that performance pay would improve teacher effectiveness

3. Most teachers think that financial rewards for student performance are unfair, although Gen Y teachers are less likely to hold this view

4. All teachers worry about the effects of performance-based compensation, but Gen Y teachers are most concerned about unhealthy competition among teachers, while older teachers worry more about the power it gives to principals

5. While Gen Y teachers are more open to performance pay in general, Gen X and Baby Boomer teachers are more likely to be comfortable basing calculations of performance on students’ standardized test scores.

6. Gen Y and older teachers agree on the extent to which they favor rewarding all teachers in the school financially if their students routinely score higher than similar students on standardized tests

Charts From Finding Two

1. Teachers value good working conditions

2. Low salary is not teachers' primary concern about their jobs

3. Increasing salaries falls in the middle among proposals to improve teaching and financial incentives receive the least support

Charts From Finding Three

1. Making it easier to remove poor teachers from the classroom receives support from all teachers

2. Teachers acknowledge there are underperforming teachers in their schools, and they can agree on who they are

3. However, there is less support for ending tenure

4. There is rising concern that unions too often protect ineffective teachers

Chart From Finding Four

1. Gen Y teachers tend to desire sustained, constructive, and individualized feedback to help them become more effective in the classroom.

Chart From Finding Five

1. All teachers desire meaningful collaboration with their colleagues, not just younger ones

Charts From Finding Six

1. Despite the large numbers of young teachers leaving the classroom, large majorities Gen Y teachers say they see themselves teaching for at least the next 10 years

2. Majorities also see teaching is a lifelong career choice, but many would like to pursue a different job in education

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y

Peiting Chen — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:39:53 -0400

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y

By Jane G. Coggshall, Ph.D., Amber Ott, Ellen Behrstock, and Molly Lasagna

Supporting Teacher Talent

Full Report: online at
Learning Point Associates

PowerPoint Presentation (.pdf)

Charts

Survey Questions & Answers

Teaching As A Career Choice

Working Conditions

Success In The Classroom

Proposed Reforms

Teachers' Unions

If I Had My Choice…

Survey Participants: Demographics

Methodology

Funding & Acknowledgements

Other Reports In This Series

Download News Release (.pdf)

Young Teachers Assess Old Views and Traditional Methods:
7 Out of 10 Gen Y Teachers Open to Incentive Pay, but Only 10 Percent Rate Standardized Testing as Successful Measure

New Research by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates
Examines Gen Y Teacher Views

New York, NY—A new study released today paints a national picture of Generation Y teachers revealing an openness to incentive pay. Seventy-one percent of Gen Y teachers are open to rewarding teachers based on incentive pay, whereas only 10 percent of Gen Y teachers think that student performance on standardized tests is an “excellent” measure of teacher success.

The nationwide study, Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y, from Public Agenda, a nonprofit research organization, and Learning Point Associates, a nonprofit education research and consulting organization, offers a comprehensive and nuanced look at the question of whether different generations bring different aspirations, concerns, and perspectives to teaching.

“Traditionally, teachers have strongly opposed differentiating pay based on student performance, but we found evidence that those attitudes may be changing among Gen Y teachers,” said Jane Coggshall, Ph.D., coprincipal investigator for the Supporting Teacher Talent study. “However, young teachers, like teachers of all ages, are concerned about using standardized test scores as the principal criterion.”

According to Sabrina Laine, Ph.D., chief program officer for educator quality at Learning Point Associates, “The study findings send a strong message to school leaders who need to recognize that to retain our best teachers, it is imperative to support teacher effectiveness through improved teaching and learning conditions because teachers, more than anything, want to make a difference for their students.”

The study explores the attitudes of all teachers toward how they wish to be compensated, examines how they view their unions, and expands on the following findings:

1. Most Gen Y teachers support incentive pay for teachers who consistently work harder and put in more time and effort than other teachers. Seventy-one percent of Gen Y teachers favor giving financial incentives to teachers who consistently work harder, putting in more time and effort than other teachers, with 25 percent “strongly” in favor.

* These differences are not statistically significant.

2. Gen Y teachers are deeply concerned about using standardized test scores to measure their performance. Only 10 percent of Gen Y teachers think that how well students perform on standardized tests is an “excellent” measure of success as a teacher, and 72 percent of them believe it is unfair to tie teacher pay to how well students perform when so many things that affect learning are beyond their control.

* Gen X teachers are defined as those teachers between the ages of 33 and 44.
Baby Boomers are those teachers aged 45 to 63.

Despite openness to incentive pay, it is not Gen Y’s first choice as a strategy for improving teaching. The idea of tying teacher rewards to student performance ranked last among 12 proposals, including requiring new teachers to spend more time teaching in classrooms under the supervision of experienced teachers, requiring teachers to pass tough tests of their knowledge of the subjects they are teaching, and ensuring that the latest technology is available in each classroom to aid instruction.

3. Teachers’ concerns that unions sometimes protect seriously underperforming teachers have risen in recent years. Sixty-six percent of all teachers agreed that unions sometimes fight to protect teachers who should not be in the classroom, as compared with 48 percent of teachers who agreed with this statement in 2003.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y is based on six focus group interviews conducted throughout the country as well as a national, random-sample survey of 890 public school teachers conducted in spring and summer 2009, including an oversample of 241 teachers aged 32 and under. The work was underwritten by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Joyce Foundation.

Funding & Acknowledgements

Founded in 1975 by social scientist and author Daniel Yankelovich and former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Public Agenda works to help the nation’s leaders better understand the public’s point of view and to help average citizens better understand critical policy issues. Our in-depth research on how citizens think about policy has been praised for its credibility and fairness, by elected officials, experts and decision makers from across the political spectrum. Our citizen education materials and award-winning website, PublicAgenda.org, offer unbiased information about the challenges the country faces on a wide range of policy issues.

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

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

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

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y Methodology

Peiting Chen — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:02:00 -0400

Supporting Teacher Talent

Full Report: online at
Learning Point Associates

PowerPoint Presentation (.pdf)

Charts

Survey Questions & Answers

Teaching As A Career Choice

Working Conditions

Success In The Classroom

Proposed Reforms

Teachers' Unions

If I Had My Choice…

Survey Participants: Demographics

Methodology

Funding & Acknowledgements

Other Reports In This Series

Download News Release (.pdf)

Methodology For This Study

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y is based on a nationally representative survey of 890 teachers throughout the continental United States. The survey was preceded by six focus groups conducted in sites across the country.

Telephone Survey

Data were collected by phone and online between April 16 and June 22, 2009. In order to capture the views of younger teachers as well as the perspectives of teachers overall, the survey included an oversample of 241 teachers aged 18 to 32; 642 interviews were conducted with teachers age 33 or older. The response rate for the survey was 25 percent.

The margin of error for the report is plus or minus 4.4 percent. However, it is higher when comparing subgroups or question items that weren’t asked of all respondents.

Sample Design

Sample was provided by Market Data Retrieval (MDR). A disproportionately stratified sample along with screening was used to over-represent teachers ages 18 to 32. Sample was drawn from MDR’s master list of classroom teachers who teach in the continental United States’ public schools and then stratified by school type and tenure to ensure sufficient young and older teachers across school types for the analysis.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed by Public Agenda, and all interpretation of the data reflected in this report was done by Public Agenda. As in all surveys, question order effects and other non-sampling sources of error can sometimes affect results. Steps were taken to minimize these, including pre-testing the survey instrument and randomizing the order in which some question and answer categories were read. The data was collected by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

Weighting Procedures

Survey data were weighted to (1) adjust for the fact that not all survey respondents were selected with the same probability and (2) account for gaps in coverage and non-response biases in the survey frame. Weights were applied to balance gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, region, year started in the teaching profession and type of school. The parameters for sex, age, race/ethnicity and education came from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Schools and Staffing Survey. The region parameter was derived from the Census Bureau’s 2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement Survey data. Parameters for year to profession and type of school came from MDR sample frame counts. The overall design effect of the weighting procedure is 1.82.

Analysis

For this research, we conducted a “cluster analysis,” or a series of statistical tests, to group data based on response patterns. Rather than using predetermined definitions, the technique explored how the teachers group naturally. Nearly every variable of the study was included in the analysis, utilizing all questions that were asked of the total sample and also the teacher's demographic characteristics.

The result of those tests is three groups: the Idealists (23 percent of survey respondents), the Contented (37 percent) and the Disheartened (40 percent). Each of the three groups has a distinctive set of attitudes and concerns that shape how they approach their careers and the education profession. We believe this is even more significant than the traditional separations by age, school-type, race or income, although the segments often coalesced along demographic lines.

Focus Groups

Focus groups allow for an in-depth, qualitative exploration of the dynamics underlying teacher’s attitudes toward complex issues. Insights from participants in these focus groups were important to the survey design, and actual quotes were drawn from the focus group to give voice to attitudes captured statistically through the surveys. All focus groups were moderated by Public Agenda or Learning Points Associates staff.

Three focus groups were conducted with a randomly selected group of young teachers in Long Beach, California; Madison, Wisconsin; and Washington, DC. An additional three focus groups were conducted with teachers who had been recognized for their effectiveness by their local school district (for example, through performance bonuses) in Raleigh, North Carolina; Denver, Colorado; and Chicago, Illinois.

Stimulated, But Worried (With Good Reason)

Francie Grace — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:00:00 -0400

There was both joy and skepticism on Wall Street, as third quarter GDP figures showed growth in the U.S. economy for the first time in over a year, a 3.5 percent annual rate expansion fanned by government stimulus spending seen as suggesting an end to the recession.

One group not seen stocking up on party hats is the economists. "The economy has emerged with gusto from the deepest recession since World War II," Unicredit Markets economist Harm Bandholz told Reuters. "The short-term prospects for the economy remain good."

"Short-term" is, indeed, the watchword, and Reuters underscores it with the words of economist Chris Low: "The economy is entirely dependent on federal deficit spending at the moment… Once the government steps aside, growth is likely to fall back to a one to two percent rate of growth."

So the long-term problem of the federal budget deficit and escalating national debt remains, and will have to be dealt with before the long-term is allowed to play out. That's a message you've heard here before – but here are a few new tidbits to help you wrap your mind around the issue and get involved in making the spending choices that are determining our present and shaping our future:

Lessons from the land of the rising sun: Japan, which has tried government deficit spending as an economic cure for a lot longer and to the point where its gross public debt is now twice the size of its $5 trillion economy (U.S. debt is nearly 98% of GDP), is now being treated to analysts wondering about the yen, with one suggesting its bond-financing strategy could falter within three to five years.

The merging of two titan issues: deficit reduction and health care. Democrats rallying for the latest version of the health care bill said the Congressional Budget Office estimated the coverage-related cost at $894 billion over the next ten years. Christina Romer, the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, in a speech Monday, was emphatic that it would be "fiscally irresponsible not to do health care reform" and stressed that "we are also on track to meet the president's promise that health care reform will not add one dime to the deficit."

The Prosperity Index. Finland's #1. Click here to see how we're doing. Then check out our resources on this topic – the Citizen's Survival Kit and the Facing Up web site and curriculum for citizens and students – and get started. Each of us is able to both understand what's at stake and do something about it.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y Full Survey Results

Peiting Chen — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:27:40 -0400

Supporting Teacher Talent

Full Report: online at
Learning Point Associates

PowerPoint Presentation (.pdf)

Charts

Survey Questions & Answers

Teaching As A Career Choice

Working Conditions

Success In The Classroom

Proposed Reforms

Teachers' Unions

If I Had My Choice…

Survey Participants: Demographics

Methodology

Funding & Acknowledgements

Other Reports In This Series

Download News Release (.pdf)

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View from Generation Y Full Survey Results

"Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y" is the second of a series of three reports based on a nationally representative survey of 890 teachers. Data were collected by phone and online between April 16 and June 22, 2009. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.4 percent.

Results of less than 0.5 percent are signified by an asterisk. Results of zero are signified by a dash. Responses may not always total 100 percent due to rounding or the omission of some answer categories. Combining answer categories may produce slight discrepancies between numbers in these survey results and number in the report.

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers

Q1 - Q6. Held for future release

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q7. What is your best estimate for how many more years you think you’ll be a classroom teacher? Do you think it will be for the next year or so, 2 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years or more than 10 years, or do you think you will not come back next year?	Not coming back next year	2%	*	3%
	Next year or so	6%	4%	6%
	2 to 4 years	16%	11%	16%
	5 to 10 years	33%	17%	36%
	More than 10 years	43%	68%	38%
	Don’t know/Refused	*	0%	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q8. Do you think of teaching as a lifelong career choice, do you think you’ll probably leave the classroom for another job in education, or will you change fields altogether?	Lifelong career choice	72%	56%	75%
	Probably leave the classroom for another job in education	20%	42%	15%
	Change fields altogether	7%	2%	8%
	Don’t know/Refused	1%	*	2%

Q9. Held for future release

Q10. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (RANDOMIZE)

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
a. Teaching is so demanding, it's a wonder that more people don't burn out.	Strongly agree	51%	41%	52%
	Somewhat agree	40%	53%	37%
	Somewhat disagree	8%	4%	8%
	Strongly disagree	2%	2%	2%
	DK/Ref.	0%	0%	0%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
b. Teaching is exactly what I wanted – there is nothing I’d rather be doing.	Strongly agree	50%	36%	53%
	Somewhat agree	36%	51%	33%
	Somewhat disagree	11%	10%	11%
	Strongly disagree	2%	3%	2%
	DK/Ref.	*	*	0%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
c. I believe that all my students, given the right support, can go to college if they choose.	Strongly agree	39%	44%	38%
	Somewhat agree	34%	35%	34%
	Somewhat disagree	17%	19%	17%
	Strongly disagree	10%	20%	11%
	DK/Ref.	*	0%	*

Q11. Held for future release

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q12. If you had to pick from this list, which would be the most difficult thing about being a teacher, is it [RANDOMIZE 1-5]?	Unreasonable pressure to raise student achievement	32%	27%	33%
	Lack of effort from students	25%	23%	25%
	Lack of support from parents	23%	18%	23%
	Lack of support from administrators	11%	12%	11%
	Low pay and lack of opportunity for advancement	8%	19%	6%
	(VOL.) None of these	*	*	*
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	1%	1%	1%

Q13 - Q15. Held for future release

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q16. Which comes closer to your view, even if neither is exactly right? [RANDOMIZE 1-2]	I prefer having a principal who frequently observes my classroom and gives me detailed feedback on how I am doing (OR)	63%	70%	61%
	I prefer having a principal who conducts formal observations of my teaching only once a year or so and gives me only general feedback (OR)	36%	30%	38%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	1%	*	1%

Q17a AND Q17b rotated

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
17a. Given a choice between two schools in otherwise identical districts, which would you prefer to work in… (ROTATE 1-2)?	The school where student behavior and parental support were significantly better (OR)	84%	83%	84%
	The school that paid a significantly higher salary (OR)	15%	17%	15%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	1%	0%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
17b. Given a choice between two schools in otherwise identical districts, which would you prefer to work in… (ROTATE 1-2)?	The school where administrators gave strong backing and support to teachers (OR)	77%	74%	77%
	The school which paid a significantly higher salary (OR)	22%	26%	21%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	1%	0%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q18. This year, about how many teachers in your building do you think fail to do a good job and are simply going through the motions? (READ 1-4)	None,	18%	15%	19%
	A few,	59%	54%	60%
	More than a few, OR	18%	28%	16%
	Quite a large number?	4%	3%	4%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	1%	0%	1%

Q19 - Q23. Held for future release

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q24. How would you complete this statement: This year, as a result of my instruction, the subject matter test scores of most of my students…(READ 1-4 IN ORDER):	Increased a lot from the beginning of the year,	43%	38%	44%
	Increased somewhat from the beginning of the year,	52%	57%	52%
	Did not increase, or	2%	2%	2%
	Decreased somewhat?	1%	*	1%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	2%	3%	2%

Q25. Held for future release

Q26. Please tell me how good you think the following measures are at indicating your success as a teacher? (RANDOMIZE)

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
a. How well the students perform on your district’s standardized tests	Excellent	12%	10%	12%
	Good	44%	40%	45%
	Fair	30%	40%	27%
	Poor	12%	7%	13%
	DK/Ref.	2%	3%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
b. Whether the students are engaged in their coursework	Excellent	46%	41%	47%
	Good	46%	47%	46%
	Fair	7%	11%	6%
	Poor	1%	1%	1%
	DK/Ref.	0%	0%	0%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
c. The feedback you get from your principal and other administrators	Excellent	20%	19%	19%
	Good	51%	56%	50%
	Fair	22%	24%	21%
	Poor	8%	1%	9%
	DK/Ref.	*	0%	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
d. How much your students are learning compared with students in other schools	Excellent	26%	16%	28%
	Good	46%	54%	44%
	Fair	21%	27%	20%
	Poor	7%	3%	8%
	DK/Ref.	1%	1%	1%

Q27. Held for future release

Q28. How effective do you think each of the following proposals would be in terms of improving teacher effectiveness? (RANDOMIZE)?

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
a. Requiring new teachers to spend much more time teaching in classrooms under the supervision of experienced teachers	Very effective	36%	25%	38%
	Somewhat effective	50%	59%	48%
	Not too effective	11%	11%	11%
	Not effective at all	2%	5%	2%
	DK/Ref.	*	*	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
b. Eliminating teacher tenure	Very effective	9%	12%	7%
	Somewhat effective	26%	27%	26%
	Not too effective	32%	39%	30%
	Not effective at all	34%	23%	36%
	DK/Ref.	*	*	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
c. Making it easier to terminate ineffective teachers	Very effective	34%	30%	35%
	Somewhat effective	42%	49%	41%
	Not too effective	19%	16%	19%
	Not effective at all	4%	4%	4%
	DK/Ref.	1%	1%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
d. Requiring teachers to pass tough tests of their knowledge of the subjects they are teaching	Very effective	15%	10%	16%
	Somewhat effective	40%	43%	39%
	Not too effective	31%	34%	31%
	Not effective at all	14%	13%	14%
	DK/Ref.	*	*	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
e. Increasing teacher salaries to levels similar to other professional jobs such as lawyers and doctors	Very effective	49%	47%	50%
	Somewhat effective	39%	45%	38%
	Not too effective	10%	8%	10%
	Not effective at all	2%	*	2%
	DK/Ref.	*	0%	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
f. Reducing class size by approximately 5 students	Very effective	66%	63%	67%
	Somewhat effective	29%	28%	29%
	Not too effective	3%	2%	3%
	Not effective at all	2%	5%	1%
	DK/Ref.	*	2%	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
g. Improving professional development opportunities for teachers	Very effective	51%	50%	52%
	Somewhat effective	42%	44%	41%
	Not too effective	6%	6%	5%
	Not effective at all	1%	*	1%
	DK/Ref.	*	*	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
h. Preparing teachers to adapt or vary their instruction to meet the needs of a diverse classroom	Very effective	61%	65%	61%
	Somewhat effective	35%	33%	35%
	Not too effective	3%	*	3
	Not effective at all	1%	1%	1%
	DK/Ref.	1%	*	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
i. Ensuring that students who are severe discipline problems are removed from the classroom and placed in alternative programs more suited to them	Very effective	68%	56%	70%
	Somewhat effective	27%	36%	24%
	Not too effective	5%	7%	4%
	Not effective at all	*	1%	*
	DK/Ref.	1%	*	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
j. Making sure that students in the classroom have roughly the same academic abilities	Very effective	17%	23%	16%
	Somewhat effective	42%	35%	44%
	Not too effective	31%	38%	29%
	Not effective at all	8%	3%	10%
	DK/Ref.	1%	0%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
k. Ensuring that the latest technology is available in each classroom to aid instruction	Very effective	55%	52%	55%
	Somewhat effective	38%	44%	36%
	Not too effective	7%	5%	8%
	Not effective at all	1%	0%	1%
	DK/Ref.	*	0%	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
l. Tying teacher rewards to their students’ performance	Very effective	8%	10%	8%
	Somewhat effective	24%	39%	21%
	Not too effective	29%	27%	29%
	Not effective at all	38%	24%	41%
	DK/Ref.	*	0%	*

Q29 - Q31. Held for future release

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q32. Which comes closer to your view? (ROTATE 1-2)	Teachers can make a difference in what kids learn and they should be financially rewarded when they succeed. (OR)	22%	28%	20%
	It’s not fair to attach teacher pay to what kids learn when so many things that affect student learning are beyond their control. (OR)	77%	72%	77%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	2%	*	2%

Q33 - Q34. Held for future release

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q35. If some form of performance-based compensation for teachers was implemented at your school, which do you think would be more likely to happen? (RANDOMIZE 1-2) Based on those who teach in schools that do not offer performance pay	Principals would play favorites and reward teachers who are loyal to them or who don’t rock the boat. (OR)	60%	54%	62%
	It would give principals a way to reward the teachers who really help kids learn. (OR)	35%	46%	33%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	5%	*	6%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
Q36. If some form of performance-based pay for teachers was implemented at your school, which do you think would be more likely to happen? (RANDOMIZE 1-2) Based on those who teach in schools that do not offer performance pay	Instead of cooperation, there would be unhealthy competition and jealousy among teachers (OR)	73%	65%	74%
	Teachers would be motivated to work harder and find ways to be more effective (OR)	25%	35%	23%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	2% (n=823)	0% (n=224)	2% (n=593)

Q37.How much do you favor or oppose giving financial incentives or merit pay to each of the following groups of teachers? (RANDOMIZE a-h; ALWAYS ASK i LAST)

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
a. Teachers who consistently receive excellent evaluations by their principals	Strongly favor	16%	17%	16%
	Somewhat favor	37%	44%	36%
	Somewhat oppose	20%	18%	21%
	Strongly oppose	26%	19%	27%
	DK/Ref.	1%	1%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
b. Teachers who consistently work harder, putting in more time and effort than other teachers	Strongly favor	32%	25%	33%
	Somewhat favor	33%	46%	30%
	Somewhat oppose	13%	15%	13%
	Strongly oppose	20%	13%	21%
	DK/Ref.	2%	1%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
c. Teachers whose students routinely score higher than similar students on standardized tests	Strongly favor	11%	7%	12%
	Somewhat favor	35%	33%	35%
	Somewhat oppose	24%	34%	23%
	Strongly oppose	28%	26%	29%
	DK/Ref.	1%	1%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
d. Teachers whose kids consistently show academic growth during the school year	Strongly favor	29%	28%	29%
	Somewhat favor	37%	38%	36%
	Somewhat oppose	13%	18%	12%
	Strongly oppose	20%	15%	21%
	DK/Ref.	2%	1%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
e. Teachers who receive certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards	Strongly favor	22%	25%	21%
	Somewhat favor	38%	45%	37%
	Somewhat oppose	18%	14%	19%
	Strongly oppose	20%	16%	21%
	DK/Ref.	1%	1%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
f. Teachers who specialize in hard-to-fill subjects such as science or mathematics	Strongly favor	16%	11%	18%
	Somewhat favor	33%	33%	33%
	Somewhat oppose	26%	34%	25%
	Strongly oppose	23%	21%	23%
	DK/Ref.	1%	1%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
g. Teachers who teach classes with hard-to-reach students	Strongly favor	27%	25%	28%
	Somewhat favor	41%	44%	40%
	Somewhat oppose	14%	17%	14%
	Strongly oppose	16%	12%	17%
	DK/Ref.	1%	1%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
h. Teachers who work in tough neighborhoods with low performing schools	Strongly favor	31%	24%	33%
	Somewhat favor	40%	44%	40%
	Somewhat oppose	14%	20%	13%
	Strongly oppose	13%	9%	13%
	DK/Ref.	1%	3%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
i. All the teachers in the school if the students routinely score higher than similar students on standardized tests	Strongly favor	21%	20%	21%
	Somewhat favor	35%	36%	35%
	Somewhat oppose	21%	28%	20%
	Strongly oppose	21%	16%	22%
	DK/Ref.	2%	1%	2%

Q38 - Q39. Held for future release

Q40. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (RANDOMIZE)

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
a. The union sometimes fights to protect teachers who really should be out of the classroom	Strongly agree	22%	15%	23%
	Somewhat agree	44%	45%	44%
	Somewhat disagree	18%	14%	19%
	Strongly disagree	7%	9%	7%
	(VOL.) N/A	6%	11%	5%
	DK/Ref.	3%	7%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
b. Teachers facing unfair charges from parents or students would have nowhere to turn without the union.	Strongly agree	49%	35%	52%
	Somewhat agree	31%	47%	28%
	Somewhat disagree	12%	6%	13%
	Strongly disagree	4%	1%	4%
	(VOL.) N/A	2%	4%	2%
	DK/Ref.	2%	7%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
c. Without collective bargaining, the working conditions and salaries of teachers would be much worse.	Strongly agree	51%	36%	54%
	Somewhat agree	29%	38%	26%
	Somewhat disagree	11%	13%	11%
	Strongly disagree	3%	2%	4%
	(VOL.) N/A	3%	5%	3%
	DK/Ref.	2%	7%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
d. Without a union, teachers would be vulnerable to school politics or administrators who abuse their power.	Strongly agree	51%	38%	54%
	Somewhat agree	31%	33%	31%
	Somewhat disagree	10%	11%	9%
	Strongly disagree	4%	3%	4%
	(VOL.) N/A	3%	8%	1%
	DK/Ref.	2%	7%	1%

Q41 - Q42. Held for future release

Q43. For this next series of questions, I’d like you to pretend you were considering transferring to a different school in your district. Would you prefer to move to a school… [RANDOMIZE THE DIFFERENT PAIRS OF ITEMS]

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
a.	To a school that has tenure and a guaranteed raise of three percent each year, but no opportunity for bonuses or merit pay?	74%	67%	75%
	That does not offer tenure and set raises, but teachers can receive extra pay based on the principal’s evaluation and their students’ progress, OR	22%	27%	21%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	4%	6%	4%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
b.	To a school with a standard leadership and salary package, but where you will have more time for your own family and personal life?	64%	67%	63%
	With a very dynamic and supportive principal and better salary potential, but where the teachers tend to work in the evenings and on weekends to keep up with their responsibilities, OR	33%	26%	35%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	3%	7%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
c.	To a school that doesn’t have as much technology, but in which no more than 22 students are ever in one classroom?	57%	64%	56%
	That has cutting-edge technology for both faculty and students and allows you to be innovative with it but class size is generally greater than 22 students, OR	40%	30%	43%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	2%	6%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
d.	Where there is a lot of collaboration among teachers and guidance from other instructional experts in developing lesson plans, OR	67%	68%	67%
	To a school with less collaboration but where teachers are freer to design their own lessons?	30%	26%	31%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	3%	6%	2%

Q44. Held for future release

Demographics


		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D1. Gender	Male	25%	22%	26%
D1. Gender	Female	73%	73%	73%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D2. Do you currently teach in a regular public school, a charter school, a private school or something else?	Public	99%	100%	98%
	Charter	1%	*	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D3. Do you teach at…(READ)	An elementary school,	51%	53%	51%
	A middle or junior high school,	17%	17%	17%
	A high school, OR	27%	28%	27%
	Someplace else? (SPECIFY)	5%	3%	5%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	*	0%	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D4. How many years have you been a teacher in the public schools? (READ)	Less than 5 years	5%	25%	*
	5 – 10 years	24%	73%	14%
	11 – 20 years	36%	2%	43%
	More than 20 years	35%	0%	42%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	*	0%	*

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D4b. How many years have you been teaching at your current school? (READ)	Less than 5 years	17%	51%	10%
	5 – 10 years	27%	47%	23%
	11 – 20 years	37%	2%	44%
	More than 20 years	18%	0%	22%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	1%	*	1%

		Total 18-32 / Gen-Y	Total 33+	Undesignated 30+
D5. What is your age? [IF REFUSED AGE] Would you mind telling me if you are under 30 years of age, or age 30 or older?		17%	82%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D6. Have you received accreditation from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards?	Yes	18%	17%	19%
	No	79%	76%	79%
	Don’t know/Refused	3%	7%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D7. In the past five years, have you ever received a financial bonus based on your individual performance?	Yes	8%	7%	8%
	No	90%	88%	91%
	Don’t know/Refused	2%	5%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D8. Have you participated in any elective professional development programs like college courses, seminars, or conferences that provide you with additional certification?	Yes	83%	83%	83%
	No	14%	12%	15%
	Don’t know/Refused	2%	5%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D9. What subjects are you currently teaching? (PRECODED OPEN-END) Based on middle or high schoolteachers	Math	23%	23%	23%
	Science	17%	22%	16%
	English	15%	28%	12%
	Social Studies	22%	22%	22%
	Foreign language	5%	2%	5%
	ESL	1%	0%	1%
	Special Ed	8%	3%	9%
	Reading/Language arts	14%	24%	11%
	Other (SPECIFY)	34%	22%	37%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	3%	7%	2%
		(n=505)	(n=112)	(n=388)
	Note: Total may exceed 100% due to multiple responses

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D10. Approximately what is your typical class size? (READ 1-3)	Less than 15	10%	15%	10%
	15-24	54%	52%	54%
	25 or more	32%	26%	34%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	3%	7%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D11. In a typical class, about how many of your students would be classified as having special needs? Would you say… (READ 1-5)	Virtually all	11%	15%	11%
	Most	6%	5%	7%
	Some	42%	35%	43%
	Only a few, OR	37%	37%	37%
	None of your students have special needs?	1%	2%	1%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	2%	5%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D12. Approximately what percentage of students in your school are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program? Would you say…(READ)	25% or under	22%	22%	22%
	26%-50%	29%	30%	29%
	51% or more	45%	41%	45%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	4%	7%	3%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D13. What path did you follow to become a teacher? Did you…(READ)	Receive an undergraduate degree in a four-year college or university program, such as getting a major or minor in education	60%	75%	57%
	Take a 5th year at college or in a university to get a degree in education	10%	4%	11%
	Get a Master’s degree in education	20%	11%	22%
	Take an alternative certification path, OR	6%	3%	6%
	Something else? (SPECIFY)	2%	2%	2%
	(DO NOT READ) Don’t know/Refused	3%	5%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D14. What is the LAST grade or class that you COMPLETED in school? (DO NOT READ)	High School diploma or equivalent/Less than a 4-year college degree	2%	0%	2%
	College graduate (B.S., B.A., or other 4-year degree)	18%	22%	18%
	Some post-graduate training or professional schooling after college (In Master’s or Ph.D program) but no degree	30%	26%	31%
	Masters, PH.D or other higher degree	48%	46%	48%
	Don’t know/Refused	2%	5%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D15. In college, did you major or minor in the subject area in which you are teaching, or not? Based on middle or high schoolteachers	Yes	79%	78%	80%
	No	19%	16%	20%
	Don’t know/Refused	2%	7%	1%
		(n=505)	(n=112)	(n=388)

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D16. Are you teaching any subjects that do not match your current certification or area of study?	Yes	9%	8%	9%
	No	89%	87%	90%
	Don’t know/Refused	2%	5%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D17. Are you currently a tenured teacher, or not?	Yes	77%	56%	82%
	No	12%	36%	8%
	(VOL.) Does not apply	8%	3%	9%
	Don’t know/Refused	2%	5%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D18. Thinking about the time you were in high school, would you characterize yourself as…(READ)	An excellent student	37%	42%	36%
	A good student	48%	50%	48%
	A fair student, OR	12%	2%	14%
	A poor student?	1%	*	2%
	Don’t know/Refused	2%	5%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D20. Are you, yourself, of Hispanic or Latino background, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or some other Spanish background?	Yes	5%	2%	6%
	No	92%	90%	93%
	Don’t know/Refused	3%	8%	1%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D21. What is your race? Are you white, black, Asian, or some other race? IF R SAYS HISPANIC OR LATINO, ASK: Do you consider yourself a WHITE Hispanic/Latino or a BLACK Hispanic/Latino?	White	86%	85%	86%
	Black or African-American	7%	6%	7%
	Asian	2%	*	2%
	Other/Mixed race (SPECIFY)	1%	*	1%
	Don’t know/Refused	4%	9%	3%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D22. Are you married, LIVING as married, divorced, separated, widowed, or have you never been married?	Married	72%	71%	73%
	Living as married	2%	*	2%
	Divorced	8%	0%	10%
	Separated	1%	0%	1%
	Widowed	1%	0%	1%
	Never married/Single	13%	24%	11%
	Don’t know/Refused	3%	5%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D23. Including yourself, how many people are there living in your household?	1 person household	12%	10%	13%
	2 person household	31%	39%	30%
	3 person household	23%	31%	21%
	4 person household	20%	12%	22%
	5 person household	8%	3%	9%
	6 person household	3%	*	3
	7 person household	*	0%	*
	8+ person household	0%	0%	0%
	Don’t know/Refused	3%	5%	2%

		Total	Gen Y	Older Teachers
D24. How many of these people are children, under the age of 18? Based on multi-person households	No children in household	47%	46%	47%
	1 child in household	26%	37%	24%
	2 children in household	18%	14%	20%
	3 children in household	6%	3%	7%
	4 children in household	2%	*	2%
	5 children in household	0%	0%	0%
	6 children in household	0%	0%	0%
	7 children in household	0%	0%	0%
	8+ children in household	0%	0%	0%
	Don’t know/Refused	1%	0%	1%
		(n=731)	(n=185)	(n=542)

The Smart Approach to a Smart Grid

Scott Bittle — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:08:17 -0400

Don't feel bad if your eyes glazed over this story reporting the Obama administration is going to put $3.4 billion behind an upgraded electrical grid – the so-called "smart grid." But it may match the Senate climate change hearings as the most important energy story of the day – and it's no less important when it comes to getting the public on board.

As a discussion topic, the electrical grid combines the excitement of municipal water and sewer systems with the seductive allure of the tax code. Yet our current grid is aging, increasingly overloaded, and not up to the challenges we're going to face.

Here are a few of the things the country won't be able to do unless we upgrade the grid:

Expand wind and solar power. The best places for wind farms, for example, are on the Great Plains, but not that many of us live on the prairie. We need better long-distance lines to carry the power to where it’s needed. Plus, the grid needs to be able to deal with the peaks and valleys in power generation that occur naturally when the wind dies off or the sun goes down.

Move to electric cars. If people are going to start driving cars like the Chevy Volt or the Nissan Leaf, that means less use of oil but more demand on our electricity grid. That means an increase in demand, and maybe making electric charging stations as common as gas stations are now.

Just keep up with demand. Even if relatively little changes about how we get our energy, the country is going to demand more and more of it over the next 20 years. Right now the power grid is already running close to capacity in certain parts of the country, like Southern California and the New York-Washington corridor. A better grid will help avoid summer blackouts and other potential problems.

The "smart grid" would combine the communications power of the Internet with the brute force capacity of the current network. For example, right now the utility knows how much power you’re using, but not necessarily why you’re using it. A smart grid would allow the utility to know much more precisely what was causing a surge in demand, and shift resources to meet it. And technology at your business or home would know the grid was approaching capacity and be able to make its own adjustments, cutting back on the electricity you could afford to give up (say, adjusting your thermostat) while keeping the essential stuff.

Plus, upgrading the grid is about as bipartisan as energy policy gets, with backing ranging from environmental groups to business leaders. So why should the public care? Can't we leave this to the professionals, the power companies and the engineers?

The problem is that upgrading the grid is going to touch a lot of people very closely. Local groups frequently resist new power lines or power plants in their neighborhood. People aren't used to the idea of the power company playing Big Brother with their energy use.

The smart grid is like just about every other aspect of energy policy: it touches people too closely to take public opinion for granted. Policies that seem like no-brainers to the experts can still run afoul of the public if they're not handled right. That's completely avoidable. But it means someone has to take the time to explain the options to people and help them weigh the choices. We've made a start on doing that.

Because if you want people to plug in the smart grid, you've got to take the time to get them to buy in first.

The Number That Matters Most for the Climate Change Debate

Scott Bittle — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:30:12 -0400

As the Senate holds hearings on a major climate change bill this week, you're going to hear a lot of numbers: 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, 350 parts per million, and $100 per household. But the best number to focus on may be this one: 55.

Students in the Dominican Republic on 350 Day, part of an international campaign calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases.

That's the percentage of Americans who say they've heard "nothing at all" about cap and trade legislation, according to the Pew Research Center. That didn't get as much attention as another finding in the same survey, that fewer Americans say there's "solid evidence" of global warming, but it may be just as significant to the debate.

In another Pew survey, only 23 percent correctly identified cap-and-trade as having to do with energy and the environment. That jives with the low knowledge levels Public Agenda found in our own research.

That means the public is still a long way from being fully engaged in this issue. You don't have to be an expert to play a role in these decisions, but you do need some basic knowledge in order to follow the discussion. Right now, despite the efforts of activists, we've still got a way to go, and there are still lots of ways this debate can stall or get hijacked.

But there are easy ways to get up to speed on hard choices. The public can play a real part in this debate – if we give them what they need.

Public Engagement: Many Religions, One Community

Francie Grace — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:24:34 -0400

"Cities of Light: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain," a PBS film about a Medieval period of unusual interaction between Muslims, Jews and Christians, is now being used by Public Agenda and the group 20,000 Dialogues for a project to help Americans engage in discussions about interfaith understanding. We have free training materials for civic and religious groups interested in hosting dialogues on the past, present and future of interfaith relations. Click here for more information and for assistance in doing this in your own area.

Inflation On Campus

Francie Grace — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:54:20 -0400

Dig deeper! Tuition and fees are up by about 6.5 percent at public four-year colleges, which are struggling with state budget cuts, and by about 4.4 percent at private colleges, hit by stock market losses in their endowments. The report from the College Board comes as our research shows a majority believes a college degree is both an indispensable ticket to the middle class and increasing numbers of people believe college is financially out of reach for many qualified students. To learn more, see our studies on this issue: Squeeze Play, Campus Commons, The Iron Triangle and Sharing The Dream.

Teaching for a Living

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:59:00 -0400

Two out of five of American K-12 teachers appear disheartened and disappointed about their jobs, according to Public Agenda's Teaching for a Living study, conducted with Learning Point Associates and released in association with Education Week.

The research, designed to learn more about how to support and retain the most promising teachers, focuses on questions like why people become teachers, what are their frustrations, and what reforms they think would improve their work.

Our findings include a cluster analysis revealing three distinct groups of teachers: the “Disheartened,” the “Contented,” and the “Idealists.”

This is the first in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Click here to see the second report, Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y, released Nov. 2, 2009. For more information, please contact Public Agenda communications manager Melissa Feldsher at mfeldsher@publicagenda.org or 212-686-6610, extension 50.

On Energy, It Takes More Than 'Eureka'

Scott Bittle — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:56:56 -0400

The Wall Street Journal has a big energy section today on "five technologies that could change everything." The Journal backs it up by posing this point:

"Admit it: When you think about our need to be less reliant on nonrenewable, greenhouse-gas-emitting sources of energy, part of you wishes, hopes, believes that technology will come to the rescue."

It's certainly a common enough view – the fact that Americans have faith in technology is nothing new. But surprisingly it's not necessarily a majority. In Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve, we found 41 percent who believed technology will solve the global warming problem "without requiring major sacrifices." But 48 percent said society would have to make major sacrifices to solve the problem.

That also depends on your definition of sacrifice. Actually bringing any energy technology to market, even the ones we have now, even the ones that sound like "magic bullets," requires some tradeoffs, as you can see in these stories about renewable energy and in the controversy over solar plants in the California desert.

Getting the technology to work is only part of the problem. Whatever choices we make have to be economically viable and publically acceptable. And that's always the hard part.

Teaching for a Living: Voices From The Classroom

Scott Bittle — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:28:49 -0400

Two out of five of America’s teachers appear disheartened and disappointed about their jobs, according to new research released by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates in association with Education Week. The new report probes why people become teachers, their frustrations, and what reforms they favor. We find teachers fall into three groups: the Disheartened, the Contented and the Idealists. Find out more about what this may mean for our schools in Teaching for a Living, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and The Joyce Foundation.

Forty Percent of America’s K-12 Teachers Appear Disheartened

Peiting Chen — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:42:27 -0400

Beyond the Plateau on Math Scores

Scott Bittle — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:52:56 -0400

The latest edition of the "nation's report card" shows that math scores failed to improve for the first time since 1990, and you don't have to have great math skills to know that isn't good enough. But how do we move skills forward?

The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported this week that fourth-grade math skills have been flat since 2007, after more than 17 years of steady if limited progress. That's prompted a lot of debate over whether this means the federal No Child Left Behind law has stalled, what this may mean for the standards movement in general, and how we teach math in the public schools.

Those are all critical points. Based on Public Agenda's research, we'd suggest one more factor to think about: parents.

Overall, we've found that parents see standards as "necessary, but not sufficient" in raising student achievement. But we've also found a troubling complacency among parents about math and science achievement, in particular. Parents say they're generally satisfied with the math education their children get, and their concern about math and science achievement declined since the mid-1990s. To be fair, that was during a period when NAEP math scores were rising. But parents certainly didn't share the urgency of business and academic leaders, who worry that the U.S. has a lot further to do, and is in danger of losing its edge in math and science.

Our work also suggests ways of closing that urgency gap. In Kansas City, where our public engagement team has worked with local groups on math and science education, we found it helps to"speak the language of opportunity," pointing out the connection between math skills and getting ahead in life.

The other question the new scores raise is how well teachers are performing when it comes to math. NAEP did an intriguing analysis this time based on the training of math teachers: whether they had an undergraduate degree in math or in education.

According to NAEP's analysis, fourth-graders whose teachers reported having an undergraduate major in education scored higher than those with teachers who reported having a minor or not having a degree in education. Eighth-graders with teachers who had an undergraduate major or minor in math scored higher than students whose teachers did not have a major or minor in math.

Our 2007 Lessons Learned survey of first-year teachers had an interesting counterpoint to this. We asked elementary school teachers if they felt "confident and well-prepared" to teach different subjects. This isn't a measure of how well teachers are actually trained – just where they feel confident and where they feel shaky.

There wasn't much difference in reading and math, with 64 percent saying they were "very confident" teaching reading and writing and 61 percent very confident in math. In math, there wasn't any statistically significant difference between alternative certification teachers and those who were traditionally trained (although the alternative certification teachers had unique concerns in other areas, like not getting enough support overall).

For more elementary school teachers, the weak area turned out to be not math, but science, where only 38 percent said they were very confident.

Q14. (From Lessons Learned) How confident and well-prepared are you in each of the following subject areas. (First,) How confident and well-prepared are you in ...?

READ FOR FIRST ITEM, THEN AS NECESSARY: Are you very confident and well-prepared, somewhat confident and well-prepared, not too confident and well-prepared, or not at all confident and well-prepared?

		Very	Somewhat	Not too	Not at all	DK/Ref.	(N)
a. Math	Total	61%	31%	4%	1%	2%	(440)
b. Science	Total	38%	48%	10%	1%	3%	(440)
c. Reading and Writing	Total	64%	30%	4%	*	2%	(440)