Thursday, February 10th, 2011 | Francie Grace
We'll be hearing a lot about the federal budget in the next week – but how much of the debate will actually help Americans figure out their choices?
President Obama will be formally submitting his budget on Monday, with proposals from Republicans already circulating. But with all the highly wonky plans and counter-plans, and the inside-the-Beltway debates over debt ceilings and resolutions, what gets lost is that the budget debate is about setting priorities – and the public needs to play a role in setting them.
Projections show the national debt will be nearly as big as our entire economy in as little as 10 years, and that more than 90 cents of every tax dollar will be taken up by rising costs for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and interest on the money we've already borrowed. If we're going to change those projections, it'll help to act sooner rather than later. Yet we're also facing a frail economy, high unemployment and lots of needs the government has to meet.
Fortunately, we've got some resources to guide you through the blizzard of billion-dollar numbers you'll be hearing in the next week:
- For a start, try Six Questions to Ask About the Federal Budget, developed as part of the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative, a partnership between Public Agenda and the National Academy of Public Administration, which includes a web site, Facebook page and Twitter feed. The questions go to the fundamental problems driving the nation's budget problems, and give you a yardstick to decide whether a budget proposal hits the mark.
- For many people, the real dangers posed by a rising national debt are still hard to grasp. In Five Ways the Growing National Debt Can Hurt Us, we set out some of the key risks the nation could face if we allow the debt to stay on its current course.
- And for more insight into the fiscal crisis, check out the new, updated version of Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis, an irreverent, nonpartisan guide to the debate. It's a quick read, but if you're really pressed for time, a nice first stop for wrapping your mind around the debate is WhereDoesTheMoneyGo.com, where you'll find all sorts of useful features including a worksheet to try balancing the budget yourself; Where In The World Is the Debt, a guide to who's lending money to the U.S.; a slideshow; and a video: just three minutes long, but full of things to get you thinking.
Thursday, February 10th, 2011 | Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson
It's an old question in education reform, and an important one: how well do we teach our teachers?
U.S. News and World Report, already a player in the education world because of its popular and controversial college guide, has plunged into the debate with its plan to issue ratings of teachers colleges. A number of schools of education, citing concerns about how the magazine will reach its conclusions, have said they won't participate.
In Public Agenda's Lessons Learned survey, we found most first-year teachers gave their training programs good marks. Nearly 7 in 10 said their training on direct instruction helped them "a lot" and 6 in 10 said that what they learned about classroom management helped "a lot." Overall 8 in 10 felt they were prepared for their first classroom (42 percent said "very prepared).
However, by the new teachers' own account, there are places where their instruction fell down. For example, three-quarters of new teachers said their training covered dealing with diverse classrooms, but only 39 percent said it helped them "a lot" once they were in their own classroom.
Moreover, new middle and high school teachers were more likely to criticize their training for putting too much emphasis on theory compared to the practical demands of the classroom. More than half (53 percent) of new high school teachers say their preparation was too theoretical, while just 40 percent of new elementary teachers say this.
The survey also raised questions about the kind of support brand-new teachers get from colleagues and administrators when they take on their first classroom, especially new high school teachers. Just a quarter of new high school teachers (26 percent) said they get excellent advice on lesson plans and teaching techniques, compared to 39 percent of elementary school teachers who said the same.
There is also a 10-point difference on the advice they said they got about handling unmotivated students: 31 percent of high school teachers say they get excellent advice, compared to 41 percent of grade school teachers.
There are dissatisfied, struggling teachers in America, beyond question, and they're an uncomfortably large group. In our Teaching for a Living survey, we found 4 in 10 teachers are "disheartened" about their jobs. More than half teach in low-income schools, and they're more likely to voice high levels of frustration about the school administration, disorder in the classroom, and an undue focus on testing. Their concerns are not so much about their training as they are about working conditions once they are on the job.
We need to produce the best possible teachers, with the best possible training. Second-rate training certainly won't produce first-class teachers. But the powerful frustration we've found among teachers in surveys focuses less on their preparation for the classroom than on what they found, and what they need, once they arrive.
Thursday, January 27th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
No sooner did President Obama call for a new focus on math and science education in the State of the Union than new test scores showed how big a challenge this will be. The new edition of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, released the day after the speech, showed only 21 percent of American high school seniors are "proficient" at science.
This isn't the first time American political and business leaders have sounded the alarm about students' poor performance in math and science, particularly compared to other countries. There's a whole range of theories about why this might be. The most recent one is that Chinese students perform better because Chinese parents are more strict and goal-oriented than American ones – the so-called "tiger mother" theory.
Whatever the virtues and weaknesses of that theory, we'd point out that in science, American students also lag behind nations like Hungary and Russia, so that can't be the whole explanation.
In Public Agenda's surveys, what we've found suggests the real issue for American parents may be complacency and priorities.
Most parents we surveyed want their children to take advanced science in high school (54 percent) – but even more (70 percent) also say science can wait until middle and high school.
In addition, most parents may also believe their children are doing better than they really are in this area. About half (52 percent) say that the amount of math and science their child is getting is "fine the way it is."
The way to change those attitudes may be to talk about opportunity – particularly the opportunities that might be missed if Americans don't do better in this area. Some 84 percent believe there will be a lot more jobs in the future for those with math and science skills, and even more (88 percent) say those skills are an advantage in getting into college.
When it comes to improving math and science education, parenting may matter – but parents' priorities may matter more.
Thursday, January 20th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
This week's congressional debate on repealing health care reform was significantly more civil than the previous fights on this issue (with at least one notable exception). But was it more helpful to the public?
Certainly the more measured tone, part of the fallout from the Arizona shootings at a congressional event, was a relief after the hyper-partisanship of last year's debate. There's also growing momentum for a symbolic gesture of civility next week, namely having members of the two parties sit mixed together at the State of the Union instead of on opposite sides of the aisle.
Civility is a crucial first step for a more effective debate. At the same time, the House health care debate showed how the current process isn't helpful to the public.
One of the problems with the health care debate of 2009-10 wasn't just that it was angry and partisan – although it certainly was – but that it was also hyper-technical. Health care is a complicated issue, and there was little effort spent on trying to make it easier for the public to understand what their options are, or what the unknowns might be.
This week's debate was a chance to revisit some of these questions. But instead the House and the policy community spent much of their time debating the accuracy of Congressional Budget Office projections on the law's impact on the deficit and the economy. That's important, but it's also a technical argument that the public isn't prepared to judge for themselves – particularly when Republicans and Democrats have such radically different interpretations. (These summaries from Factcheck.org on the economic and deficit implications are helpful, as is the Five Things You Need to Know About Health Care and the National Debt from Choosing Our Fiscal Future).
If any health care reform is to succeed, the public needs a sense of what the alternatives really are. If not this plan, what? What are the pros and cons, what are the tradeoffs? How does this health care bill stack up against other ideas – and against a fiscally unsustainable status quo?
These are crucial factors if the public is going to make sound judgments about anything. They didn't get them in the first health care debate, and they didn't get them from this week's debate, either. A more civil tone can help that more sophisticated discussion happen – but it's not enough by itself.
Thursday, January 13th, 2011 | Scott Bittle
We may never completely untangle the reasons behind last weekend's shootings in Arizona. The slayings of six people at a congressional event, including a nine-year-old girl, have prompted a national debate over whether hyperpartisan, overheated political rhetoric pushed the accused gunman over the edge. President Obama himself called for a more civil dialogue at the memorial service yesterday.
But the truth is that our system of political discussion is broken, even if it played no role whatsoever in this horrible event. Part of the evidence for that is the fact that so many in politics and the media immediately thought that inflamed rhetoric could have played a part in the Arizona tragedy. That says as much or more about the state of our debate – and the people who largely shape it -- as it does about the mind of Jared Lee Loughner. So many in public life apparently already suspected that some day, somewhere, someone might snap because of the state of political debate – even, it seems, as they participated in that debate every day.
Life is not a civics lesson. Passion, even anger, are an essential part of public debate. Demonization of your opponents isn't. The calls for greater civility coming from all quarters are entirely right, and we agree.
Yet a harsh tone is only part of what's wrong with our public discourse.
- Our model of "an informed public" isn't working. We do a reasonably good job of alerting citizens to problems, but we do an appalling job of helping them understand how, realistically, we can solve them.
- Rather than helping citizens understand issues, much of the news consists of experts talking to each other, scoring points off each other rather than really explaining anything. As a nation, we do very little to help people actually follow the discussion.
- As more people choose their news sources to match their preconceptions, there aren’t enough venues where typical citizens from different walks of life can exchange their ideas and perspectives. When Public Agenda helps communities organize conversations on important issues, participants routinely tell us how fascinating and important these kinds of discussions are. They want to know when they can do it again.
None of those problems would ever cause violence. But every day, in large ways and small, they keep us from solving our shared problems.
We need greater civility, and the fact that so many in public life are re-examining the tone of the debate is a positive thing. We hope it takes root. But civility is only a start in having the dialogue we want – and need – as a nation.
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 | Scott Bittle
Over the past couple of weeks, Washington has been consumed by choices over taxes and spending: first the furor over the deficit commission report, then over the compromise on the Bush tax cuts. And that got us thinking about the 1993 movie ”Dave".
"Dave" has a durable old plot, about a lookalike who takes the place of the president, and is actually better at it than the real one. In one famous scene, Dave stares down the Cabinet over cutting a marketing campaign in order to save funding for a program helping homeless children.
In the real world, however, we're not always faced with such clear choices between what's moral and valuable and what's not. The fact is that despite Americans' skepticism of government, most of the federal government's money goes to programs that people actually support and depend on. The tough part comes when we have to make choices between different things that are all valuable.
Overall, the American political system does a pretty bad job of helping the public work through its options. All of Public Agenda's work shows that the public really can cope with complicated decisions, given the right circumstances. But the public has a "learning curve" on problems, and it takes time for them to "work through" a question and come to solid conclusions.
But there are a lot of potential barriers to that process. Hyperpartisanship, mistrust, wishful thinking and a host of other factors work against people as they try to come to considered judgments.
The federal budget, energy, education: these are just a few of the complicated problems that can't be solved without an engaged public. And to get that engaged public, we've got to get better at considering our options as a nation. Because, unlike in "Dave," not all the choices are going to be easy.
Click here to see the full version of this story at OurFiscalFuture.org, join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter, and keep up with the latest deficit and national debt proposals and maneuvers with Fiscal Future Daily (on holiday break now, and back in business on January 3).
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 | Scott Bittle
It's been a tumultuous year for the country: economic hardship, political change, and a full slate of pressing problems that seem more intractable than ever. The challenges facing the nation have never been greater, and neither has the need to engage citizens in shaping their own future.
Public Agenda has been working all year to address that need, producing groundbreaking opinion research and citizen engagement programs around major domestic policy issues. Through those initiatives, and on the web and through social media, we've helped to educate and empower citizens by helping them consider the challenges facing our nation, including:
- Insightful Research on Why Too Many Young People Don't Finish College: With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them and Can I Get A Little Advice Here?, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, probe the reasons behind sometimes-surprising barriers young people face in getting a postsecondary diploma.
- Engaging Communities to Improve Lagging High School Graduation Rates With funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Public Agenda supported the Carlsbad, New Mexico School District in its efforts to engage local parents, students and educators in increasing high school completion rates. We provided technical assistance and training for a local "Graduation Summit."
- Survey On Math & Science Education in America Our study done with the support of the GE Foundation, in which we asked parents and the general public how well the schools are getting the job done, continues to be cited on a regular basis by educators and others concerned about the U.S. maintaining a competitive position in the world.
- Bridging the Gap between Leaders and the Public on Climate, Energy and Science Through presentations to scientists, like this one made by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich at the American Association for the Advancement of Science; books, and blog posts, we've encouraged some of the world's most prominent scientists to change the usual - and largely ineffective - model used to engage with the public on issues like climate change.
- Helping the Public Make Fiscal Choices In the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative, in partnership with the National Academy of Public Administration, with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, we work to help citizens think through the options for dealing with our rising national debt.
As a subscriber of Public Agenda's Alert, we hope you will contribute to ensuring that Public Agenda will continue to meet these central goals in 2011. We greatly appreciate contributions of any size from people like you who help make our work possible. To make a secure, online donation, click here.
Or, if you prefer, you can also make a donation by mail: Public Agenda, 6 East 39th St., Floor 9, New York, N.Y. 10016, or by phone: contact Alex Trilling at 212-686-6610 ext. 20.
Thank you for your support of our work.
Thursday, December 9th, 2010 | Scott Bittle
So what does a "Sputnik moment" look like? And does it mean the same thing to the public as it does to our leaders?
The usual definition is that it's a moment when the United States has been bested in technological competition – something that gives the American public a kick in the pants to move forward. That's what happened during the original Sputnik moment in the 1950s, when the Soviet Union was first to put a satellite into orbit, and the first American attempt to do the same turned out to be a humiliating, televised, flop.
President Obama and others say the latest international education scores should serve as another Sputnik moment. Students from Shanghai, China, in their first appearance in the standings, came out first in the world in science, while American students improved to the point where their scores are now "average." Leaders in business, science and academia have been beating the drum on science and math education for years now, warning that the U.S. risks losing its edge and falling behind on innovation.
And that may be the heart of the problem. Public Agenda's Are We Beginning to See the Light research, funded by the GE Foundation, found that both parents and the general public think math and science education is important, but they don't share leaders' sense of urgency.
Overwhelming majorities of Americans say that in the future there'll be a lot more jobs requiring advanced math and science skills, and that students with those skills will have a big advantage in getting into college. Majorities are also open to a lot of different ways of improving math and science in schools.
At the same time, few Americans think it is "absolutely essential" for students to understand advanced sciences like physics (28%) and advanced math like calculus (26%). When it comes to their own child, few parents want more emphasis on advanced math and science like physics (42%) and calculus (42%). Additionally, nearly 7 in 10 Americans say science can wait until middle and high school.
And that's on the heels of a long series of reports showing American students falling behind.
So if our Sputnik moments fall flat, how do we get the public engaged in this challenge? In our Opportunity Knocks report, we found one way is to talk about opportunities: ways in which learning more math and science can build better careers and better lives for young people.
It's not as dramatic as a rocket exploding on the launch pad – but it may be more effective. After all, parents may be a lot more concerned about whether their own child has a good career ahead than about whether their child outscores another child half a world away.
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010 | Francie Grace
Is Washington really ready to act on our fiscal problems? On Nov. 30, The National Academy of Public Administration invites you to a panel discussion on the findings from Public Agenda's latest update to its "The Buck Stops Where?" survey, which measures the attitudes of Washington policymakers and "beltway influencers" on the issue of the national debt.
Panelists include Bill Hoagland, vice president of public policy and government affairs at at CIGNA and former staff director of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee; Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Ruth Wooden, president of Public Agenda and a member of the Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States; and moderator Martha Kumar, professor of the Department of Political Science, Towson University. It's free and you can RSVP at this link.
11.17 Training The Teachers
Wednesday, November 17th, 2010 | Scott Bittle
A major new report this week calls for turning teacher-education programs "upside down," inspired by medical schools, to focus more on "clinical" experience in the classroom. Eight states have already agreed to adopt the recommendations from the panel, set up by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
But what do new teachers themselves think about how well they're prepared for that first day of school? Based on research by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates, there may be a major gap between the way reformers and teachers see teacher education. Our survey of first-year teachers showed that most feel they're well prepared for the classroom – but there's a significant difference depending on the kind of classroom they face.
In our Lessons Learned series of surveys of new teachers, eight in 10 said they felt "very prepared" (42 percent) or at least "somewhat prepared" for the classroom. Almost all said their coursework included classes on children's development, and roughly half said those courses helped "a lot" in the classroom. Nearly seven in 10 said their training in direct instruction helped "a lot."
Where their training failed them most, however, was in dealing with ethnically and racially diverse classrooms. Only 39 percent of new teachers thought their training helped "a lot" there. (One of the recommendations is more structured training in diverse settings).
There's also a notable difference between elementary and secondary teachers. More than half of high school and middle school teachers (53 percent) say their training was too theoretical, compared to just 4 in 10 elementary teachers. High school and middle school teachers were also less confident their students were responding to their efforts.
So as we overhaul teacher training to focus more on the classroom, there may need to be more dialogue with teachers on the need for change and new approaches and more thinking from experts on how to help teachers be effective in the classroom situations they find most challenging.