Thursday, October 21st, 2010 | Scott Bittle
In the fierce debate over immigration, one fact sometimes gets lost: the children of immigrants are actually one of the fastest-growing segments of the population.
Their numbers have doubled over the past two decades, from 8.3 million to about 16.5 million. Put another way, children of immigrants account for three quarters of the growth of America's child population since 1990. But how are they faring in American society, particularly in a time of economic stress? How do their experiences compare with their parents?
Public Agenda and the Urban Institute examined some of these questions at "Children of Immigrants and Their Parents: Two Perspectives on Life in America," a panel discussion broadcast live on C-SPAN. In addition to Public Agenda Research Director Jon Rochkind, the panel included included Ajay Chaudry, senior fellow of the Urban Institute's Center on Labor, Human Services; Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center; and Selcuk Sirin, assistant professor in the NYU Department of Applied Psychology. The panel was moderated by Tara Bahrampour, immigration staff writer for the Washington Post.
Public Agenda looked at many of these questions in our survey, A Place to Call Home: What Immigrants Say Now About Life in America, which found that most immigrants believe they made the right move in coming here, both for themselves and their children.
You can find presentations from the speakers here, or watch the entire discussion on the C-SPAN Web site.
Thursday, October 21st, 2010 | Francie Grace
What does science need to move forward toward unlocking the unknown about HIV, cancer, autoimmune disorders, neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, cellular and genetic diseases, and more?
Nobel prize-winning biologist Dr. David Baltimore (left, with NPR's Robert Siegel) says scientists just beginning to dig into what could be a decades-long investigation of an issue need to know early on: Will the financial support be there for me to continue my research? Can I make a stable career of this?
Dr. David Baltimore, who won the Nobel Prize 35 years ago for his research in virology and has had a profound influence on national science policy on such issues as HIV-AIDS and recombinant DNA research, is wary of predictions about exactly how long it will take to develop vaccines and new therapies. "We've always said, about an HIV vaccine, that we're at least 10 years off - and we've always been right," said Dr. Baltimore, at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast in New York today.
Dr. Baltimore was, however, quite clear on what he thinks it takes to give science the fuel it needs to get to those breakthrough moments: strong, steady commitments in policy and funding, allowing researchers the freedom to follow whichever trails are the most promising - and not necessarily the ones that looked that way at the time a project was initially funded.
One thing that slowed early research into AIDS, says Dr. Baltimore, was a lack of commitment by the scientific establishment to investigating HIV. He reacted by calling on his colleagues to get involved, and, getting involved himself. "Today, we understand the virus very well," he said, adding that while the search for a vaccine continues, there are also people looking at alternative approaches to the problem.
There are many challenges in research, from cancer - characterized by Dr. Baltimore as "very slippery," with a great ability to adapt and defeat a therapy - to stem cells, a field with funding especially but not uniquely vulnerable to political change. No matter what the area of research, however, scientists diving into what could be many years of study on a problem need to know: Will the financial support be there for me to continue my research? Can I make a stable career of this?
Dr. Baltimore, president emeritus and a biology professor at CalTech, as well as past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is also a longtime member of the board of directors of the biotech giant Amgen, experiences which provide him with multiple perspectives on funding and other issues in research.
One of the major challenges in medical science is the gap between basic research and applying it in clinical practice: the "valley of death," as Dr. Baltimore dryly called it, and a difficult one to cross. Federal funders don't see that as their job, while pharmaceutical companies will do it only when they're sure it'll work. Venture capital has played an important role here, but more is needed. Academics, he suggests, "need to bring in sources of capital - maybe a consortium, like they did in the semiconductor industry."
In some cases, particularly with neurological diseases like Alzheimer's, science still hasn't found the cause, so it can't offer the answer, Dr. Baltimore said. He compared it to understanding the connection between smoking and lung cancer. "Medicine has to get to finding the underlying causes and then devising a lifestyle that avoids the causes," he said.
For more of Dr. Baltimore's observations, click here to watch the video of the entire event.
Friday, October 1st, 2010 | Scott Bittle
As many of one-third of all the ballots in this year's midterm elections will be cast early this year, as absentee voting continues to gain ground. There's been a lot of debate over what this will mean for both the political system and our civic life as the national ritual of Election Day declines.
But Public Agenda's research shows voters' reasons for this are pretty simple: convenience, and, confidence in their choice.
When Public Agenda surveyed voters about their experiences at the polls after the 2008 election, we found little dissatisfaction about the voting experience itself. Most people said they didn't face any problems voting, and hadn't in previous years, either. In fact, polling places got good marks compared to other institutions where people transact business in person. More people (79 percent) rated their polling place as "very organized" than gave good marks to their post office (65 percent), Department of Motor Vehicles (54 percent) or fast food franchise (35 percent).
So why vote early? The vast majority of the early voters we surveyed (86 percent) said it was a matter of convenience rather than necessity, frustration or a previous bad experience. And for many, there was also a sense of "why wait when I already know how I'm going to vote?" Three-quarters of the early voters said one reason for their choice was because they had already made up their mind.
From all the opinion data, the public is in a frustrated mood this year. And the nation's system for casting and counting ballots has been controversial since the 2000 election. But so far, the simplest explanation for early voting seems to hold up: it's just easier.
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010 | Francie Grace
While Congress is not yet ready to act, with the economy still far in front as what the public perceives as the nation's top problem, candidates in the upcoming elections are feeling the heat on immigration reform.
Here are a few resources and developments that you might want to check out:
* Was that an undocumented worker? The familiar question casts a shadow over the gubernatorial race in California;
* Immigration: a boon or a burden to the economy? One of the topics in the spotlight at a forum this week at the Brookings Institution;
* Immigration: Who Gets To Come, Who Gets To Stay - - our Citizen's Survival Kit guide to the problem and the pros and cons of different types of solutions to this issue;
* A Place To Call Home: What Immigrants Say Now About Life In America - - our public opinion research in which we asked both documented and undocumented immigrants about why they came, why they stay, and their views on a long list of issues including their feelings about America.
Thursday, September 23rd, 2010 | Scott Bittle
The first thing to remember about Jon Stewart and his proposed Rally to Restore Sanity is that he's a comedian.
And that means the Daily Show's rally will essentially use the National Mall as the set for large-scale sketch comedy, a piece of performance art, should the actual permit come through. (If there's any doubt that that this is primarily about comedy, the presence of Stephen Colbert's rival March to Keep Fear Alive should put that to rest). Lots of people are taking this way too seriously, as a threat to Democratic get out the vote efforts or a riposte to other media personalities like Glenn Beck.
Yet, it would be wrong to suggest that Stewart hasn't hit a nerve here, with many in the public and, honestly, with many at Public Agenda. Stewart, from his mostly liberal vantage point, has been a consistent critic of our polarized, overheated political discourse, and so have we, looking at things from our own, nonpartisan point of view. When he says there's a majority of Americans who would support pragmatic solutions to many problems, we would say our own surveys and engagement work shows that to be true. Really, is anyone satisfied with the state of America's political dialogue? Does anyone think this is the way things are supposed to be?
We'd add a few additional points. The media and the political system don’t do a good job of laying out choices and alternatives. Compromise seems out of fashion. The public gets very little help in moving along its learning curve on complex issues – and the political system oversimplifies those issues anyway.
We'd do better, as a nation, if we got past the anger and started thinking about how we're actually going to do all the things that need to be done: get the economy on track, improve our schools, change our energy future, secure the country against terrorism, get the federal budget on a sustainable course.
Maybe comedy is the best approach. We in the deliberative democracy world, and the public policy world overall, tend to be very sober, terribly sincere, and, to put it bluntly, wonky. But you can't be angry and laughing at the same time. Nor can the overheated rhetoric continue to expand if we pop a few bubbles occasionally.
So, yes, "Take it Down a Notch for America" seems like a pretty appealing slogan right now. A little irreverence can be a powerful thing.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Rally to Restore Sanity|
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010 | Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson
The new documentary "Waiting for Superman" poses the question "Who will become a hero now?" when it comes to fixing American schools.
The movie offers a lot of possibilities, with much of the attention focused on high-profile figures like District of Columbia schools chancellor Michelle Rhee and Geoffrey Canada, leader of the Harlem Children's Zone. But Public Agenda's research suggests the place where more superheroes are needed is several rungs further down the ladder, and much, much closer to the people who need rescuing. The place to start is in the principal's office.
There are lots of jobs in this world where a good boss is the difference between an organization that succeeds and one that fails. That's particularly true of schools, where the principal can be the biggest single factor in whether a school is making progress or not.
And you can see that reflected powerfully in the attitudes of teachers. Public Agenda has surveyed teachers extensively over the years, and it's clear to us that the fear of a bad boss, and the hope of a good one, drives much of the disenchantment and skepticism teachers often show toward top-down school reform. In fact, for teachers, schools can become entirely different places depending on whether they see their principals as effective or not.
For example, two-thirds of teachers who give their principals fair or poor ratings consider "lack of administrative support" a major drawback of teaching, compared with only 16 percent of those who give their principal excellent or good ratings.
That's not surprising. If you have a bad boss, you're more likely to say bad management is a problem with your work, regardless of what kind of work you're doing. What's more surprising is how this pattern continues into teachers' views of almost every other corner of school reform. Teachers who say their principals are unsupportive are more likely to complain about issues like testing, the lack of freedom to be creative, and to say there are too many kids with discipline problems. One Public Agenda study grouped teachers as being "Contented," "Idealistic" or "Disheartened" in their jobs. While healthy majorities of the contented and idealistic teachers gave their principals "excellent" ratings, just 14 percent of disheartened teachers said the same.
Thursday, September 9th, 2010 | Scott Bittle
The Gallup poll says more Americans are more dissatisfied with the quality of education than at any point in the past decade – but what, exactly, are they dissatisfied about?
Some 54 percent of the public says they're "completely" or "somewhat" dissatisfied with K-12 education, up from 45 percent in 2004. Parents, however, are a lot happier, with eight in 10 saying they're either somewhat or completely satisfied with the education their child gets.
A lot of this is no surprise, and in fact it's one of the best-established public opinion trends in education. For years, Americans have given their local schools better grades than public schools nationally, and parents have been happier about schools than the general public. When it comes to public education, familiarity breeds confidence, at least to some degree.
When Public Agenda has asked both parents and the public about their perception of the schools in their own community, the similarities are more striking than the differences. And the differences are often a matter of degree, not of basic perceptions.
For example, when we asked parents and the general public about the most pressing problem facing the high schools in their community, both said "social problems and kids who misbehave" was more important than low academic standards. But 63 percent of parents said this, compared with 56 percent of the public.
When asked to rate local schools, parents are more confident than the public that schools are doing a good job preparing students for college level English (55 percent compared to 46 percent), to be successful adults (53 percent vs. 44 percent), for college math (52 percent vs. 45 percent) and college science (50 percent compared to 44 percent).
Yet when it comes to deciding what's important for students to learn, we found parents and the public wanted the same things (especially when it comes to basic skills). And when given options on how to spend extra education money in their community, parents and the public would spend it the same way.
That's worth remembering as the nation continues to debate how to ensure all kids get a good education: conflict makes the news but there's a lot more consensus out there than you think..
Monday, September 6th, 2010 | Scott Bittle
Is college overrated?
The Washington Post opened up a debate when it ran a story last week questioning whether high-priced college degrees actually pay off economically. While the story quoted several critics, this isn't a majority view. Public Agenda's surveys show that most Americans are convinced a college education is necessary to get ahead. And federal statistics show that people with college degrees earn more over their lifetimes.
But if most Americans are so convinced of the value of college, why are we having the argument?
One reason may be how the public is processing two conflicting worries: their conviction that college is necessary is rising, even as they're increasingly worried that a diploma is out of reach financially.
In our Squeeze Play studies, we've found the number of people who think that a higher education is "absolutely necessary" for success has jumped dramatically, up from 31 percent as recently as 2000 to 55 percent in our last two studies, in 2008 and 2009. Yet nearly seven in 10 also say there are many qualified people who don't have access to higher education, up from 47 percent in 2000.
When those trends collide in the public's thinking, one result is skepticism about how colleges operate financially. Six out of 10 Americans in our Squeeze Play survey now say that colleges today operate more like a business, focused more on the bottom line than on the educational experience of students. The number of people who feel this way is up by 8 percentage points since 2007.
Six in ten Americans agree that "colleges could take a lot more students without lowering quality or raising prices." Over half (54 percent) say that "colleges could spend less and still maintain a high quality of education."
It's these kind of doubts that the critics of colleges may be tapping into: not so much that there isn't value in college, but that colleges may not be doing everything possible to keep their prices in line. You can believe something is absolutely necessary, and still wonder whether you paid too much for it.
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 | Francie Grace
Even before the economy hit the wall, community colleges were already a vital part of the American dream, enrolling about half of all college students in this country. High college costs - complicated by declining housing prices and mortgage problems – have put community colleges on the radar for an increasing number of families as policymakers wrestle with issues ranging from scarce resources to green jobs and, in one case, the issue of whether funding should be performance-based.
Here at Public Agenda, access to and success in higher education are a major focus of both our public engagement work and our research. Aiming to improve the current situation, in which fewer than half of all community college students earn degrees, we now have a Boosting Community College Success section on our Web site with resources for educators, students, community leaders and parents.
The resources we offer to boost graduation rates include:
- Choicework Discussion guides and videos to help students, parents, educators and communities sort through the options on College Readiness, 21st Century Careers, and Success in Community College
- Profiles of fieldwork our public engagement team has done on this issue in various communities
- Customized technical assistance and training for holding Community Conversations to tackle problems in a community or school
- Planning guides, workbooks and other tools designed as part of the national Achieving The Dream initiative for community college success, which includes a focus on low-income and minority students
- Public opinion research on access to higher education and education reform, including our series of reports for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on obstacles to college completion: Can I Get A Little Advice Here? and With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them.
Our social networks are also a great resource for talking over the issues, swapping reports, and getting to know the others in the trenches for higher ed. We'll look forward to seeing you there: on Twitter and Facebook.
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 | Scott Bittle
When databases and disenchantment collide, the results can be explosive – as the debate over "value-added" grading of teachers showed this week.
The Los Angeles Times provoked a furious reaction from teachers this week when it launched a database of 6,000 elementary school teachers analyzing how they've done measured by standardized tests. The stories prompted debate around the nation on the methods used and at least one piece wondering "When Does Holding Teachers Accountable Go Too Far?"
We'd argue that you can't understand the debate over the database without understanding the disenchantment so many teachers feel over their jobs.
Public Agenda's research, conducted with Learning Point Associates, shows a stunning number of K-12 teachers, some 40 percent, appear to be disheartened and disappointed in their jobs. Only 14 percent rate their principals as "excellent" at supporting them as teachers. Nearly three-quarters cite "discipline and behavior issues" in the classroom as a drawback to teaching, and 7 in 10 say that testing is a major drawbacks as well. More than half of these "Disenchanted" teachers (54 percent) work in low-income schools.
By contrast, the 23 percent of teachers who shaped up as "Idealists" and the 37 percent we termed "Contented" were more likely to say their principal was supportive, more likely to say their school was orderly, and more likely to say good teachers can make a difference in student learning. Only 34 percent of the Contented and 45 percent of the Idealists work in low-income schools.
The Teaching for a Living survey can't tell us whether the Disenchanted are bad teachers, or good teachers trapped in bad schools, or whether the Idealists are effective in the classroom or just more cheerful. But the survey does tell us something about what teachers believe their problems are. Regardless of how we try to measure success in the classroom, a better understanding of how teachers feel about their jobs can help explain why some things work and others don't.