EDUCATORS: NEWSFEED

Parents, the Public and Schools: A Degree of Difference

Scott Bittle — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:18:10 -0400

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..

Grading Teachers, Measuring Success

Scott Bittle — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:06:09 -0400

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.

Boosting Community College Success

Francie Grace — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:26:50 -0400

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.

Does First Out of the Application Gate Mean Most Likely to Graduate?

Scott Bittle — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:23:44 -0400

There are people who wait until the last minute, and then there are people like high school student Cree Bautista, who holds the honor of being the being the first student in the United States to apply to college this year, a mere three hours and thirty minutes after the "common application" form went online.

Only about a thousand students have followed his lead and submitted applications this year. That's still a fourfold increase over last year, and enough of a jump that some admissions officers are warning that there's no real advantage to getting applications in too early.

The hottest debate in higher education right now isn't about how students start college, it's about how shockingly few students actually finish. But the two are closely connected. And Public Agenda's research shows that those who drift into their college decision are more likely to drift back out again.

This isn't solely about money. In our survey, both young people who graduated from college and those who didn't said tuition and fees were an important factor in their decision. In fact the numbers were essentially identical (57 percent versus 56 percent). They're also neck-and-neck on how big a role scholarships and financial aid played in their decision (41 percent of those who didn't graduate said this was a factor, compared to 38 percent of those who did).

Nor is it really about process. True, those who say they received poor counseling in high school are less likely to go directly from high school into a college program—a decision that research shows is highly correlated with completing college. Yet when we asked young people what would help more people like them finish college, making the application process easier was ranked dead last, both for those who finished college and those who didn't.

Yet there is a difference between how different students pick a college, and in many cases the difference is the need to earn a living. Students who drop out are largely paying their own way, and more than any other factor, they cited the difficulty of juggling work, family and school as the reason that they left college.

With that in mind, other elements of the selection process make sense. For example, those who completed postsecondary education were more likely to say they picked their school based on the likelihood of getting a good job (57 percent), the major they wanted to pursue (54 percent) and the school's overall reputation (54 percent). They're also more likely to have parents who have four-year degrees.

Students who don't finish college, however, were much more likely to choose a school based on convenience to where they live or work (66 percent) and a class schedule that fit their needs (59 percent). They're more likely to say that their parents have only a high school diploma or less (41 percent versus 30 percent). And that makes sense: if you're working your way through school, you have to choose a school that fits your work schedule. Plus, if your parents haven't been through the college admissions process themselves, they're less able to help their children make choices.

The college admissions season is just starting cranking up, and if past years are any indication, we'll be seeing plenty more stories in the media on the high-pressure, high-stakes paper chase for top students headed for elite colleges. Those stories are perfectly real.

But many young people, perhaps even a majority, aren't living that life at all. They're making their decisions based on the juggling act they're going to face between work, school and family. And they're not getting much help. They have parents who don't know the application process, and overworked counselors who can't offer much help.

Until we face those realities of how students get into college, and what they go through while trying to stay in, we'll never be able to change the fact that so many give up on it.

College Completion: Eyes On 2020

Francie Grace — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:13:05 -0400

President Obama heads to Austin, Texas, today for a speech in which he is expected to talk about the goal of the U.S. regaining its position as the nation with the highest percentage of college graduates (we're now #12 for citizens aged 25 to 34). For a preview of the speech, see http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/09/obama.education/; you can also watch it live at 3 p.m. ET at WhiteHouse.gov/live. Public Agenda has done a lot of work on this issue. Why are so many Americans having a hard time making it from the first day of college to graduation day? And what can be done about it? To learn more, check out our series of reports on college completion, "With Their Whole Lives Ahead Of Them" and "Can I Get A Little Advice Here?".

Get the Picture: Visual Budget Tool & New iPhone App

Scott Bittle — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:50:42 -0400

Keeping score on the federal budget is more complicated than it needs to be. Take today's official report on the status of the Medicare and Social Security programs. There's positive news, in that Medicare's financial situation is projected to improve as a result of the new health care plan. There's slightly worse short-term news for Social Security. And there's continuing bad news, in that the long-term outlook of both programs remains troubling.

Understanding the relationship between the federal budget and government policy is difficult even for full-time budget wonks, and for the rest of us, it's almost impossible. The biggest problem isn't that we can't get to the right information, it's just that the information isn't easy to use, and we have a hard time visualizing the context of budget decisions.

Solutions are, however, at hand. Choosing Our Fiscal Future has rolled out a new iPhone app, which delivers news, tweets, video and more about the national debt crisis. And OurFiscalFuture.org now has the U.S. Visual Budget tool, a web-based application which helps the numbers make sense. With this application you can:

Compare aspects of the budget to one another – from branches of government to functions like energy or international affairs

Examine changes over time – right now, going back to the Kennedy administration, but soon we'll be able to take you all the way back to George Washington

See what spending decisions were made in what sort of political climate – by House, Senate, or Presidential party

See numbers in real dollars, in nominal dollars, or as a percentage of GDP, and print any chart that you create for use elsewhere

Try out the Visual Budget Tool at http://www.ourfiscalfuture.org/visualbudget.html, start thinking about our options, and let us know what you think: it's all of our futures that are at stake.

Choosing Our Fiscal Future is a partnership between Public Agenda and the National Academy of Public Administration, funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Sparking Math and Science Dreams In Tomorrow's Leaders

Francie Grace — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:37:02 -0400

As a kid, I was always in awe of Marie Curie: just imagine, a woman and a world-renowned scientist, wife and mother. Despite that early imprint, I found glasses and microscopes awfully hard to use at the same time, and accordingly focused my talents in the world of words, which brings me here to you today.

Sally Ride was another such role model for many, so it's kind of cool to see America's first woman in space as the name on the door and the guiding force behind the Sally Ride Science Academy. With the National Science Foundation predicting that 80 percent of the next decade's jobs will require math and science skills, Ride was on hand in D.C. last week as a hundred elementary school teachers from across the nation gathered at the Academy to learn more about strategies for getting today's kids excited about science. "When I was growing up ... science was cool," says the 59-year-old Ride. "We need to make science cool again."

A lot of educators are working on this, too – among the notables online are Chris Lehmann of Philadelphia's Science Leadership Academy (which got a visit from Bill Gates) and many of the reformers active in #edchat discussions on Twitter and elsewhere in social media – but unlike those pathfinders, most of Ride's students are teachers.

The success of such efforts depends very much on public attitudes towards math and science and opinions on the relative importance of the need to nurture the next generation of tech wizards and workers. Public Agenda's been very active in this area, both in research on public attitudes to lay the groundwork for discussion, and in public engagement projects talking to community leaders, parents and students.

Our public opinion study, Are We Beginning To See The Light?, found strong majorities who said there will be more jobs and college opportunities for students with science and math skills. But 52 percent of parents said the math and science education their own children are getting is "fine as is," and few survey participants, including non-parents, said it's essential for students to understand advanced sciences like physics (28 percent) or advanced math like calculus (26 percent).

For more on this subject, see: Getting Ready For 21st Century Careers, our Choicework discussion guide for citizens to consider the issues and take action in their own communities; Opportunity Knocks: Closing the Gaps between Leaders and the Public on Math, Science, & Technology Education; Out Before the Game Begins: Hispanic Leaders Talk About What's Needed to Bring More Hispanic Youngsters Into Science, Technology and Math Professions; and A Time to Learn, A Time to Grow: California Parents Talk About Summertime and Summer Programs.

Feeling the Pressure In Higher Ed

Francie Grace — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:42:28 -0400

"If we don't think we're going to have to reinvent ourselves, we are delusional." That's Liz Grobsmith, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Northern Arizona University, in an Inside Higher Ed interview at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities "Re-Imagining Undergraduate Education" conference last week in Chicago.

Two- and 4-year colleges across the country are facing the challenge of super-tight budgets and the need to operate more efficiently while changing the way things are done to meet the needs of today's students. There's also the fast-expanding world of for-profit institutions, which are under increased government scrutiny as they scramble to attract the hard-earned dollars of price-sensitive prospective students, and have been known to use tactics such as hard-hitting advertisements which are less likely to be associated with traditional bastions of higher learning.

Speaking at the AASCU meeting, George Mehaffy, the organization's VP for leadership and change, played a video of one well-known for-profit commercial and then laid it on the line to his audience: college provosts from across the country. This, said Mehaffy, is the time "to get serious about the process of change in American higher education. It is important that we resolve to make substantive changes -- major changes, not changes around the margins -- and that we do so with a fierce sense of urgency."

The AASCU plans a year-long process of working with campus leaders to identify a set of initiatives for institution-wide and possibly proposals for national change. Mehaffy, known for his interest in civic engagement, was effective in sparking debate among the academics on hand (and online – check out the comments on Inside Higher Ed), who he has exhorted to work together for change.

We've been working on that ourselves here at Public Agenda, where we're using the tools of public engagement and public opinion research to improve access to higher education. To learn more about this, check out Changing the Conversation About Productivity: Strategies for Engaging Faculty and Institutional Leaders, a report by our Public Engagement team following up on our earlier report, Campus Commons: What Faculty, Financial Officers and Others Think About Controlling College Costs. We also recommend Squeeze Play, our study on public opinion about college costs and the college experience; Sharing the Dream, research on efforts to improve outcomes for community college students; and our series of reports on obstacles to college completion, Can I Get A Little Advice Here? and With Their Whole Lives Ahead Of Them.

Immigration: Passionate Debate, Everyday Experiences

Scott Bittle — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:13:08 -0400

The teeth of Arizona's new immigration law were blocked in court this week, but the debate is undoubtedly going to continue. Arizona is already appealing the decision, as other states considering similar laws watch how the case progresses.

Given the passions aroused in the Arizona debate – and the recurring fights about immigration over the last few years – it's fair to wonder about how this plays out in day-to-day interactions. Overall, immigrants themselves paint a picture of a country where they fit in well. In Public Agenda's survey of immigrants, A Place to Call Home, we found most immigrants said they felt comfortable in the United States pretty quickly.

More than three-quarters (77 percent) say that it takes fewer than five years to "feel comfortable here and part of the community," and nearly half (47 percent) said it took fewer than two. Seven in 10 say they'd do it all over again if they had the chance.

Such easy comfort with their adopted home comes despite some formidable obstacles. Just more than three quarters (76 percent) say that they came to the United States with "very little money," and only 20 percent say they had "a good amount of money to get started." Some 45 percent say that they came to this country not speaking any English at all, an increase of 10 points since 2002.

There are some indications, however, that when it comes to being "comfortable" in communities, other immigrants play a critical role. Compared to 2002, more immigrants say that they spend time with people from their birth country and have closer ties there. Half of the immigrants we surveyed (51 percent) say they spend "a lot" of time with people from their birth country, a jump of 14 points from 2002.

And when it comes to discrimination, most immigrants say it exists, but most also say they don't run into it personally. More than six in 10 immigrants say there's some discrimination against immigrants in the United States today, and one in five say there's “a great deal” of discrimination. But only 9 percent of immigrants say that they have personally experienced “a great deal” of discrimination, with another 16 percent reporting that they experienced "some." And while Mexican immigrants are more likely to say there's a great deal of discrimination against immigrants, they're no more likely to say they've experienced it personally.

Higher Ed: Sticker Shock & Reform On Campus

Francie Grace — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:24:19 -0400

Escalating college costs affect who can go to which school, career opportunities, the kinds of courses that are offered, and the degree of innovation that faculty and administrators may employ. Some resources we think you'll find helpful on this issue: our new study on ways to engage faculty in reforming colleges from the inside out; our work in boosting community college graduation rates; our surveys on stumbling blocks to graduation and changes that might help; comments from our president, Ruth Wooden, on the importance of good advice for high school students; and Squeeze Play 2010, the latest in our series of public opinion surveys on college costs.

Changing the Conversation About Productivity: Strategies for Engaging Faculty and Institutional Leaders

Francie Grace — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:56:28 -0400

Changing the Conversation About Productivity:
Strategies for Engaging Faculty and Institutional Leaders

A Report by Public Agenda for the Lumina Foundation's Higher Education Productivity Initiative

Click here to download the full text of this report (pdf)

Introduction

This report builds on and extends Public Agenda's ongoing research on the attitudes of various stakeholder groups toward higher education reform.^[1] Here we explore the purpose and promise of more effective engagement of those stakeholders who—at first blush, at least—appear to express the deepest resistance to the productivity agenda: faculty. The report's driving questions are, what does it take to bridge the most pervasive divides in perception between productivity advocates and faculty, and what can be accomplished through deeper, more strategic engagement?^[2]

In the course of exploring strategies to engage faculty as important partners in the pursuit of greater productivity, we have found it necessary to expand the scope of our inquiry somewhat to include institutional leaders more broadly. Because effective leadership is critical for driving and sustaining change efforts, it is important that faculty engagement be viewed as a critical component of a larger institutional engagement effort that also includes college presidents, senior administrators, trustees, chancellors and the like.

Faculty, and sometimes college leadership as well, have often been viewed by reformers as tangential to the development and enactment of productivity policies. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that these “frontline” stakeholders in higher education are, in fact, critical to the success of any productivity agenda. There is growing awareness among many productivity advocates that engaging such key stakeholders in strategic ways at each step in the policy process—from development to implementation to sustainability—is key to generating the sense of shared purpose necessary for long-term success. Still, many questions remain about how best to engage those stakeholders who are typically most resistant to productivity agendas.

The insights and strategies summarized in this report are drawn from three focus groups with faculty at both two-year and four-year institutions and roughly 25 in-depth, one-on-one interviews conducted with college presidents, higher education researchers, representatives of collective bargaining associations, disciplinary associations, accrediting bodies, professional development organizations serving faculty, and representatives from a wide range of higher education consortia. ^[3]

Regardless of the type of stakeholder interviewed, the questions we asked revolved around the same themes: Can faculty be more effectively engaged around the productivity agenda? Should they be? If so, what would more effective engagement of faculty look like, and what is to be gained? When conducting focus groups with faculty at both two-year and four-year institutions, we explored alternative approaches to framing the productivity agenda, different strategies for opening up constructive dialogue with faculty about productivity and different avenues for faculty participation in the agenda in order to identify the conditions under which faculty were able to move past their more predictable negative reactions and begin to view themselves as co-owners of this difficult work.

As a result of these conversations, we believe that faculty can and must be engaged more effectively in the productivity agenda for lasting gains to be made. Most important, our findings suggest that more effective engagement is indeed possible and that the current economic and educational climate is conducive to the development of several particularly promising strategies. This is not to say that the job of bridging the gaps between faculty and more natural allies of the productivity agenda will be simple or easy, but evidence suggests that establishing a shared sense of purpose and a constructive working relationship with faculty is both necessary and possible.

[1] See, for example, the following Public Agenda reports: Squeeze Play (2009, 2010); Campus Commons (2009); and The Iron Triangle (2008).

[2] The Lumina Foundation for Education’s Productivity Initiative centers on their "big goal" to increase the percentage of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025. To achieve Goal 2025, Lumina and their partners/stakeholders are focusing on three policy priorities: (1) increase and reward completion; (2) generate and reinvest savings; and (3) educate and train in affordable ways.

[3] While three new faculty focus groups were conducted in 2010 for this memo (in Minneapolis, MN, Austin, TX, and Phoenix, AZ), we also drew on the set of faculty focus groups conducted in 2009 for our Campus Commons report. Also, to encourage candor, we guaranteed individual interviewees that we would not directly attribute quotes to individuals in the report. Instead, we provide generalized attributions by stakeholder type and provide a complete list of interviewees at the end of the report.

Momentum For Common Standards On Education

Scott Bittle — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:31:01 -0400

The drive for common core education standards is gaining steam, with 26 states and the District of Columbia already signed up. Public Agenda's research has found Americans like the idea of standards – but low standards are not their most pressing concern about schools.

More states are expected to sign up for the standards in English and math, which are a key part of the Obama administration's "race to the top" program and also have strong backing from the nation's governors and chief school officers. But the idea still causes intense debate among educators and others.

In our research, Public Agenda has consistently found that the public supports the idea of standards, and has for some time. In our most recent look at this, our "Are We Beginning to See the Light?" survey on math and science education, strong majorities of both parents and the public said establishing a national curriculum would help improve math education (about half of both groups) said it would help "a lot."

It's also important to note that curriculum and standards are not what's bothering parents and the public most about schools. When participants in our math and science education survey were asked about the most pressing problem facing local high schools, some 63 percent of parents and 56 percent of the public cited "social problems and kids who misbehave." Only about three in 10 cited "low academic standards and outdated curricula."

National standards may well be a major step forward for improving American schools – but the public sees safe and orderly schools as a pressing concern, and that deserves to be addressed as well.

Editor's note: This post has been edited to correct the number of states that have adopted the common core standards; as of July 23, the count is 26 states and the District of Columbia.

Making the Connection on College Completion

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:33:30 -0400

In a recent report by Public Agenda for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, six in 10 of young adults who went on to further education gave their high school counselors poor grades for their college advice, and nearly half said they felt like "just a face in the crowd." Ruth Wooden, president of Public Agenda, addressed the report's findings at the July 5, 2010, annual meeting of the American School Counselors Association in Boston. Her speech, speaking to the issues facing both high school students and their guidance counselors, is transcribed below.

Thank you for welcoming me so warmly to this meeting—and I don't say that lightly. Public opinion studies from Public Agenda often generate controversy and a fair bit of angst. Our recent study "Can I get a Little Advice Here?" did show that nearly half of young Americans who attended some college said that they "felt like a face in the crowd" when they met with their guidance counselor to talk about plans for life after high school. Moreover, the research showed that those young people who said they were poorly counseled were less likely to get financial aid and more likely to delay college, a decision that often makes it more difficult to complete a degree later on. And that's the crux of the mission I bring to your meeting today.

President Obama is only one of many leaders in government, business, education and the like who has stressed the need for the United States to increase the number of Americans with college degrees or certificates, and has urged a concerted effort to help students successfully complete their degrees. This is especially urgent at the nation's community colleges where only one in five students has earned a degree after three years. When Jacques Steinberg of the New York Times wrote about the Public Agenda research, he commented that it was "sure to provoke strong emotions among high school guidance counselors and students, to say nothing of high school graduates and their parents."

Steinberg was right on target. The research prompted extensive media coverage and robust discussion online. Not only was the response vibrant, it was also especially constructive. Rather than being defensive—an all too common response to troubling news—the American School Counselor Association and individual school counselors stepped forward right away to say the study had revealed an important problem to them as well. Patricia Nailor was quoted last week in USA Today, saying the "study serves as a wake-up call for sparking substantial, needed changes."

Since we released the report, I've learned a lot more about the counseling profession—way beyond my personal experience back in the 1960s as a student at Minnetonka High School in Excelsior, Minnesota. I know now that helping students make decisions on higher education is just one of many responsibilities that counselors take on, and that you typically work with hundreds of students. In California, I understand there are places where the ratio is 1000 to one, while the average is about 465 to one.

Individuals working in service organizations, mentoring programs and youth advocacy groups contacted Public Agenda to talk about how their work might help fill the college application information gap, especially the one facing first generation college students whose families are less familiar with their choices. That group is now the majority of our students. Six in ten students come from families where neither parent graduated from college, and the statistic that correlates the highest with college completion is if one of a student's parents graduated from college.

The response has been so intriguing that Public Agenda hopes to join with like-minded groups and individuals to convene a daylong conference in Washington, D.C., this fall or winter that would gather key stakeholders to discuss practical ways to push solutions forward. ASCA has actively pursued working with us on this conference and we thank you for your enthusiasm.

The meeting would provide several benefits: 1) it would take the conversation to the next level—beyond identifying a problem to identifying possible solutions—and help sustain the impetus for change; 2) it would offer a venue for counselors, educators, researchers, advocates, innovators and funding organizations to gather, compare notes, and make connections; and 3) it would spotlight solutions and model programs that might be replicated more widely across the country.

One such program, a pilot in twenty New York City high Schools called READY, was developed by a group called ReServe. ReServe matches older adults interested in continuing to work post retirement at work that combines purpose, passion and a modest paycheck—work now being called "encore careers." READY coaches are trained in the free application for federal student aid, essay writing and applications administration, and work ten to twelve hours a week under a counselor or principal to work specifically with kids the counselors have identified as needing additional support.

This morning, I met with two groups of your membership to get further input and suggestions about this issue. What a dynamic bunch of people: we could still be talking together, given all their ideas for strengthening this one aspect of your counseling work. I thank all of them for the time they gave me, and I was struck by the willingness to collaborate with others outside of the school building—for example, with employers, where your students' parents could be prompted to push parent involvement in ways that you can't. So could parent liaisons in the school.

Higher education institutions have been in a sellers' market for too long and should be at the table, making the college process more transparent and, frankly, less onerous. Coaching models such as the READY program could be expanded to include test-coordination responsibilities, which have expanded geometrically for too many of you, thus freeing your time for more post-secondary counseling. The advisory councils called for in the ASCA Comprehensive Model can engage all these groups much more intensely as well. And certainly, better understanding by principals, superintendents and school boards of the ASCA National Model would go a long way to standardizing the definition and appropriate roles for your profession.

But beyond the creative and thoughtful ideas I've heard today, the best inspiration of all is the enthusiasm and readiness to do whatever it might take to help put these young, deserving kids on the path to a fulfilling future. Let's stay that course—for their sake.

Governors Aim To Get More Students Across College Finish Line

Scott Bittle — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:59:43 -0400

The nation's governors vowed this week to tackle America's dismal college completion rate – and Public Agenda's work points to some of the hurdles and possible solutions in getting more students across the finish line.

At the National Governors' Association conference, the organization unveiled "Complete to Compete," a new effort to build common metrics and develop "best practices" for states to improve completion rates. Right now, only 20 percent of students at two-year colleges finish in three years, and 40 percent of those at four-year schools finish in six years.

One thing Public Agenda's research shows pretty clearly is that many of the common views about why students don't finish college don't hold up. The image of the college student for many people is still the full-timer who's supported by their parents. But in fact, our "With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them" survey finds that most students leave college because they're working to support themselves and attend school at the same time. Students who drop out are almost twice as likely to cite problems juggling work and school as their main problem as they are to blame tuition bills (54 percent to 31 percent).

And what do students say would help? Flexibility. Eight in 10 young adults we surveyed who did not complete college supported making it possible for part-time students to be eligible for more financial aid and offering more courses in the evening and on weekends, to fit around their work schedules.

But college completion touches on a host of challenges about how higher education could operate better. Public Agenda is currently working in Texas and Arizona to help state leaders engage such critical stakeholders as college students, presidents and faculty as part of the Lumina Foundation's efforts to enhance higher education productivity in order to increase completion while controlling costs.

Facts, Fancy & Moving Forward

Scott Bittle — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:27:51 -0400

Facts are stubborn things, John Adams once declared. But so, apparently, are people.

There's been a lot of attention this week to research suggesting, as the Boston Globe put it, that "facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite." Studies show people with strong partisan views not only reject conflicting information but are likely to hold onto their misconceptions even more strongly. (Here's a roundup of commentary on this point).

This research isn't new, but one reason why it may resonate is the concern among many commentators that people are more prone to getting their information from sources that fit their preconceptions – the quality Stephen Colbert famously defined as "truthiness." Even setting that aside, surveys continue to show wide gaps in how Republicans and Democrats perceive problems. That includes our own Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, which found Republicans getting significantly more anxious about global affairs, even as Democrats' belief that the U.S. was "on the right track" jumped 41 points.

An understanding of the way that the public thinks and learns about problems is at the core of The Learning Curve^TM, Daniel Yankelovich's theory on how to help the public and policymakers move forward in discussing and crafting solutions to public policy issues. Click here to find out more about this process and its implications for public engagement and policymaking.

So is it hopeless to even try to give people authenticated facts and balanced information to consider as they make decisions in politics? Should journalists and good government groups who try to promote better understanding of issues just throw in the towel?

First off, not everyone is a political partisan, and even those with strong political views may not hold them on every subject. Most Americans aren't up to speed on every problem facing the nation. How could they be? There's a flood of information out there, but only so much time in the day to keep up with the topics you're interested in, much less everything else.

Secondly, clearly people do change their minds as they get more information. Surveys show this time and again: on equal opportunity for women, on gay rights, on race relations, the war in Iraq, even offshore drilling, there have been huge shifts in public opinion as people have absorbed new ideas and had time to think about them. Sometimes it happens quickly; more often the process can take time, years or even decades. But there's no doubt that it happens.

Finally, more and better facts don't automatically translate into better decisions. People need facts, yes, and false information must be challenged. But just as important, they need context. The public has a "learning curve" on complicated issues, and any number of things can derail it, like wishful thinking, mistrust, and a lack of urgency. Most of all, people need a sense of what their options really are, with a sense of the pros and cons involved in making decisions – because every decision does involve making tradeoffs.

In fact, one of the fastest ways to help people advance on the learning curve is to present them with a set of choices with the pros and cons clearly spelled out. Looking at the choices side-by-side helps people grasp an issue more quickly than just about anything else.

That's what public engagement is all about. Under the right conditions, people can and do weigh alternatives fairly and come to practical conclusions. We've seen it time and again in the engagement projects we've run all across the country. But our political system and the media do a terrible job of helping the public juxtapose the options side-by-side and sort through the benefits and trade-offs. What the system does now is to highlight the flaws in virtually any idea for addressing nearly every tough issue -- immigration, the national debt and federal budget deficit, energy, and others. Since we're not able to find a solution with no downsides, we basically end up doing nothing.

The real danger to democracy here isn't that people have trouble hearing other views, or that they're prone to believe what they want to believe. The real danger is that, as a society, we'll use this psychological insight as an excuse to throw up our hands and say that there just are no solutions we can agree on. And the best way of ensuring that we don't solve our problems is to stop trying.

Public Opinion On The Deficit: Not Either/Or, But Now Or Later

Scott Bittle — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:52:54 -0400

There's been a lot written in the media and the blogosphere about surveys on whether the public is more worried about the economy or the federal deficit – and most of what's written only sees half the story.

Public concern about the deficit is rising, some argue. But jobs are more important, others say. Both are true. The distinction that's often being missed is between the public's short-term and long-term concerns.

There's no question the economy is a much higher priority than the national debt and the budget deficit for the public right now. Let's take, for example, the CBS News/New York Times poll released yesterday. A plurality (38 percent) say the economy and jobs are the most important problem facing the country today, followed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (13 percent), heath care (6 percent), the budget deficit/national debt (5 percent) and the Gulf oil spill (also 5 percent).

Other surveys have found similar results, and that's not surprising. In April, Gallup found one in five Americans fear losing their job over the next year.

But the public also thinks the deficit could be the most important problem in the future. When Gallup asked what the most important problem might be 25 years from now, the most popular answer given was the federal budget deficit (14 percent), closely followed by the economy and the environment (both 11 percent). That's the first time the deficit has led the list, and the first time it's drawn more than 5 percent responses, according to Gallup.

Among policymakers, of course, the debate over the past several weeks has been whether the federal government needs to keep spending to stimulate the economy or should start pulling back to control the deficit. Both sides are treating it as an either-or choice, and citing surveys to prove their point.

Yet a number of economists and policymakers have argued that there's no contradiction between the two choices, and that we could take steps to control the long-term fiscal problem while continuing a stimulus plan now. The surveys do show that there's a difference in the public's perception of the biggest problem now (the economy) and what could be the biggest problem in the future, our unsustainable federal budget. Both of those problems are very real – and the fact that the public sees both of them as real could be a huge asset for policymakers as they grapple with solutions.

On the Public and Climate Change, It's Not the Heat or the Cold, It's the Curve

Scott Bittle — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:28:49 -0400

This week's triple-digit heat wave has raised both temperatures and hopes among climate activists that this can move public opinion about global warming – just as climate skeptics grasped onto last winter's "snowpocalypse" as a talking point. From our point of view, what policymakers and activists really need is a better reading on the public, not a better reading on the thermometer.

When it comes to complicated problems, like energy and climate, public thinking goes through a "learning curve." The learning curve runs through several stages, from initially learning about an issue to "working through" the different alternatives and finally to a resolution, according to Public Agenda's founder, Dan Yankelovich. This can be a long process, and there are a lot of potential hurdles that can block progress. Scientists and policymakers, in particular, often believe that more information is the answer, but information is only one element in public thinking.

The hardest part of this process is the middle stage of "working through," where the public weighs a particular problem against other priorities, and various options to solving it against each other. This takes time, and there are a lot of potential roadblocks, like wishful thinking, mistrust, a lack of urgency, and a lack of clear alternatives.

On energy, the public is certainly wrestling with a lack of knowledge, but the question of whether climate change is real or not is only a piece of that puzzle. Four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel, and even more can't name a renewable energy source. People overestimate the amount of oil we have domestically and the amount of energy we get from renewables.

So even if Americans believe we need to overhaul our energy policy – and surveys show they do – they're hampered in dealing with the options to making that change happen. The decisions needed to change our energy mix require serious tradeoffs based on economics, technology and politics. Without key facts and clear choices, the public can't judge what's realistic and what's not, and that's bound to hamper constructive, practical decision making.

There are good reasons to be skeptical of whether heat waves actually change the public's sense of urgency on global warming. But even if a hot spell made the problem more urgent for the public, without better ways of working through the choices, people could still be lukewarm when it comes to buying into practical solutions.

The Long And The Short Of The Budget

Scott Bittle — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:57:58 -0400

The opinion writers continue to debate whether the country needs more economic stimulus or more budget-cutting – this "opinionator" faceoff in the New York Times is the latest contribution. But the more the commentators talk, the more confusing this may become for the rest of us.

We've got a recession to fight in the short term and a national debt that will reach unsustainable levels in the longer term.

Both of these problems absolutely have to be dealt with. There's a wide range of views on how to do that (the Washington Post's Ezra Klein tried to map this debate this morning). There are those who argue that there's room to do both short-term stimulus and long-term debt reduction, including Paul Krugman and David Walker. And even the Congressional Budget Office says there's "no intrinsic contradiction" between the two goals.

That's because the short-term and long-term problems are driven by different things. In the short term, our federal deficits are mostly caused by the recession itself, both because tax revenue is down (since fewer people are working) and because the government's been spending plenty to stimulate the economy. In the long term, the problem is primarily rising health care costs and an aging population that is going to drive up spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

What's worth remembering, as you follow the debate, is that steps taken to attack one problem won't automatically solve the other. Pulling back on stimulus spending may cut this year's deficit, but it won't change the trends driving the long-term problem. And most of the options for attacking the long-term problem aren't designed to do much about the recession or even the annual deficit.

Mixing the two problems up just makes those tough choices harder to make – and right now the one thing we can't sacrifice is clarity.

What Kind Of Country Do We Want To Be?

Scott Bittle — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:51:55 -0400

Values and choices.

That's what so many of the problems facing the nation come down to, and on this Fourth of July weekend, it's worth thinking about what that means – and why our public debate so often veers away from that.

Consider some of the challenges we face:

The latest long-term projections for the federal budget range from what one magazine called the "improbable" to the truly disastrous. It's a good thing those aren't our only choices. The budget debate (click here to see video of our Washington, D.C., panel discussion on this issue) is only going to get fiercer as policy leaders start edging closer to dealing with the problems of health care costs and an aging population that are driving our long-term fiscal problems. But there are practical solutions to this problem, no matter whether you're coming at this from a liberal perspective, a conservative one, or anything in between.

Immigration reform, the subject of a major speech this week by President Obama, is another problem that's debated fiercely but stalled as far as coming to solutions. Public Agenda's own research shows that immigrants "buy in" to American values and society, but their perceptions of some of the problems can be significantly different from those of native-born Americans.

The Gulf oil spill is still gushing, and Congress is still only creeping toward changes on energy and climate policy. The fundamental challenge is that the world needs both more energy and cleaner energy. There are ways of making that happen, but it requires all of us to think about what our options really are, and what we're willing to do to get there.

On education, we face decisions about how we give students the support they need to turn around our nation's dismal college completion rate. In public schools, we have equally tough decisions about how to hire – and keep – the best possible teachers.

Depressing thoughts for a holiday weekend? Not at all. There are practical options available to solve all these problems. But citizens need to think about what's important to them, and consider the tradeoffs inherent in making solutions stick. Policymakers need to consider how the public thinks about these social issues, and what they need to move up the "learning curve" and make informed choices.

And, after all, the public making its own decisions is what the Fourth of July is all about.

Rational Talk About The Budget

Scott Bittle — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:51:47 -0400

If anything comes through loud and clear about Saturday's America Speaks National Town Meeting on the federal budget, it's this: the American people can still grapple with complicated, even daunting, issues, and come to solid conclusions.

After last year's rough-and-tumble town hall meetings on health care, some people may have doubted whether civil discussion of complicated issues is even possible anymore. Yet some 3,500 people from all walks of life took time out on a weekend to spend more than six hours talking about the federal budget. The topic's not easy, and neither are the solutions.

Forums in 19 cities around the country came together, discussed the problem in a civil manner, and wrestled with no less than 42 options for addressing our long-term budget problems. They came up with some fascinating conclusions, such as:

Raise the limit on taxable (Social Security) earnings so it covers 90% of total earnings.

Reduce spending on health care and non-defense discretionary spending by at least 5%

Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than $1 million

Raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69

Reduce defense spending by 10% – 15%

Create carbon and securities-transaction taxes

You can find out more about the national town meetings here. The event was organized by America Speaks, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (The MacArthur Foundation is also funding Our Fiscal Future).

So civil discussion is possible – but it does have to be structured. The "open-mike night" atmosphere of many public forums can easily turn into just a way to express anger, without any discussion of solutions. In the public engagement approach used by Public Agenda, as well as the related strategies used by America Speaks and other groups, deliberative forums are designed to let people weigh the costs and tradeoffs behind each option, and make informed choices between them.

The National Town Meeting shows we can still have a productive discussion, even on the toughest issues – and that's what we're going to need, if we're going to solve our budget problems in a way that lets us both pay our bills and preserve our values.

Getting From Magical To Practical

Scott Bittle — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:13:51 -0400

Americans are ready to change the nation's energy policy – but are they ready to do what it takes to get there?

Nearly all Americans think energy policy is broken, with nine in 10 who say it needs either "fundamental changes" or should be "completely rebuilt," according to a new CBS/New York Times survey. Clearly, there's a consensus that change is needed.

But what kind of change? In the same survey, 59 percent said it was at least "somewhat likely" that the United States will develop an alternative to oil within the next 25 years. But half (51 percent) said they would oppose raising gas taxes to pay for developing renewable energy, rising to 65 percent when a tax of $1 per gallon was mentioned.

The poll results are not that different from what Public Agenda found in our Energy Learning Curve™ public opinion research, which revealed a great deal of consensus on solutions, and at the same time, a strong sense that anything that increases the cost of driving is off the table for the public.

The challenge for leaders will be how to move the public from supporting change to backing practical steps to make it happen. Increasing the cost of driving isn't the only option for changing how we get energy, but all the options require choices on both technology and economics. The CBS/Times survey shows one bargain the public isn't willing to make. Now we have to find the bargains that will fly.

To learn more about the choices we face, check out Who Turned Out The Lights? Your Guided Tour To The Energy Crisis and join the discussion on Facebook and on @TheEnergyBook, our energy feed on Twitter.

Summer: A Time To Learn, A Time To Grow

Francie Grace — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:28:49 -0400

For many parents, that's both a question and a hope for their children, and to help those who are looking for programs to give children a chance to learn over the summer, Summer Learning Day was celebrated coast to coast this year on June 21. The purpose – putting a spotlight on programs that are available in various areas – fits well with one of our recent surveys, "A Time To Learn, A Time To Grow: California Parents Talk About Summertime And Summer Programs," in which we found a gap between what parents want for their children during the summer and the activities in which their children were able to participate. Majorities of parents said it is important for their child to partake in a variety of activities during the summer, including academics. But six out of ten said they either did not enroll at least one school-aged child in any summer program in 2009, or did so for less than half of the summer. Click here to see more of the findings from this research, funded by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Communications Manager

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:04:14 -0400

Communications Manager

Public Agenda is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1975 by social scientist and author Daniel Yankelovich and former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Our mission is to help leaders and citizens work through tough issues and achieve pragmatic solutions. We pursue this mission through nonpartisan research, public and stakeholder engagement and communications on issues ranging from education to immigration and from health care to energy.

The Communications Manager will be an integral part of Public Agenda's external relations strategy under the direction of the Executive Vice President/Public Issue Analysis, with primary responsibility for media relations and developing communications messages around our research and public engagement work. The Communications Manager will also support the Development Director in building and maintaining relationships with funders and partner organizations. This is an exciting opportunity for a communications professional who's interested in the full range of problems facing the country and in bringing the public's voice into civic life.

Responsibilities

Primary responsibilities include:

Writing news releases, speeches and opeds, creating Powerpoint presentations, and other communications materials
Pitching stories to media, tracking coverage, and maintaining relationships with reporters in Public Agenda's areas of focus
Supervising the organizational contact database
Enhancing internal communications
Supporting institutional publications
Assisting in developing proposals to foundations and other potential funders
Supervising event planning, such as the breakfast speaker series done by Public Agenda in conjunction with the Maxwell School of Public Affairs

Qualifications

At least two years experience in communications or media
Strong writing, editing and interpersonal skills
Strong organizational skills and the ability and desire to work on multiple projects at once
Interest in a wide range of public policy issues
Familiarity with online research tools

How to Apply

Please submit resume and cover letter with "Communications Manager" in the subject line to positions@publicagenda.org.

Salary commensurate with experience and includes a competitive benefits package.

Public Agenda is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to maximizing the diversity of our organization.

The Higher Ed Balancing Act

Scott Bittle — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:32:26 -0400

A new report on work and education underscores a key irony in higher education: too many students have trouble getting the degree they'll need for jobs in the future because they're too busy working at the job they have now.

Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce reported this week that the number of jobs requiring an associates' degree or more will grow faster than the pool of qualified people, to the tune of a three-million-worker shortfall by 2018. People who drop out, or even those with just a high school education, will increasingly find themselves left behind in the marketplace, the center said.

Yet Public Agenda's research has found one reason for the nation's dismal college completion rate is the difficult juggling act so many students have to perform between work, school and family responsibilities. In our survey of young adults, With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them, we found more than half of those who left higher ed before completing a degree say that the "need to work and make money" while attending classes is the major reason they left.

Balancing work and school was an even bigger barrier than finding money for tuition. In fact, those who dropped out are almost twice as likely to cite problems juggling work and school as their main problem as they are to blame tuition bills (54 percent to 31 percent).

And those who do drop out may not fully realize the impact that failing to get a degree will have on their future. As a group they are less likely to "strongly agree" that their parents always instilled in them the importance of college, that people who have a college degree make more money and that they would still go to college if they knew they could get a good job without a degree.

So what do these young people say would help? Making college more convenient to those on busy schedules, such as offering evening and weekend classes, and helping part-time students get financial aid. Find out more about the report, prepared for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Real Change On Energy

Scott Bittle — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:05:10 -0400

In his first Oval Office speech, President Obama tried to channel frustration over the Gulf oil spill into momentum for changing U.S. energy policy, calling for new action to promote clean energy and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The president compared changing the nation's energy use to the buildup for World War II, or the drive to put a man on the moon.

In a recent blog posting, I observed that in those cases the public may however have had a much firmer grasp of both the challenge and the choices facing the nation. The public has a "Learning Curve™" to climb on complicated issues, as people work through what they think and what they're willing to do. Americans can do this on energy as they have before on many other thorny issues, but before we do, there are a couple of challenges to get past.

Rescuing oiled pelicans in Barataria Bay, La. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class John Miller)

One is that significant numbers of Americans lack key information about how we use energy. Four in 10, we've found on our surveys, can't name a fossil fuel, and roughly half can't name a renewable energy source. Although most people are aware that it'll take a while for alternative energy to really take hold, most also overestimate how much renewable energy we use now.

In fact, the United States gets 80 percent of its energy from fossil fuels – and the government's own projections say we'll still get getting 80 percent of our energy from fossil fuels in 2030, unless we take steps to change.

The second challenge is helping the public grasp the choices we face. The Deepwater spill (USCG photo, above: rescuing oiled pelicans in Barataria Bay, La.) has made the risks and tradeoffs involved in offshore drilling abundantly clear. But the tradeoffs involved in moving away from oil are more complicated.

Do we want to continue putting something liquid in our tanks, like biofuels or natural gas? Do we want to move to electric cars? Are we willing to pay more to do either? Any of these alternatives require big changes – after all, there are 250 million motor vehicles in the U.S., and almost all of them run on oil.

These are choices that divide and even flummox the experts. But making choices doesn't have to be left to the experts – and on this issue, more than most, it's the public that has to choose. To learn more about the choices we face, check out Who Turned Out The Lights? Your Guide To The Energy Crisis and join the discussion on Facebook and on @TheEnergyBook, our energy feed on Twitter.

Panel Discussion: The Buck Stops Where? What D.C. Influencers Say About the National Debt

David White — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:45:54 -0400

National Academy of Public Administration
900 7th Street NW
Meeting Level - Auditorium

Join the National Academy of Public Administration and Public Agenda for a panel discussion on the national debt – the problem and possible solutions – including the results of "The Buck Stops Where?", a poll of D.C. movers and shakers asked about problem, and a look at ways America can rise above the partisan divide that is impeding progress on this issue.

Speakers at this event include Elaine Kamarck and John Castellani. Karmack is on the faculty of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She was a White House advisor to President Clinton from 1993-1997, and is the author of "The End of Government As We Know It: Policy Implementation in the 21st Century" and "Primary Politics: How Presidential Candidates Have Shaped the Modern Nominating System."

John Castellani is the President and CEO of the Business Roundtable. He frequently provides news commentary on business and public policy issues, and has appeared on programs including NBC’s "Meet the Press," PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Fox News Channel's "Special Report," and CNBC's "Street Signs."

Seating is limited; please RSVP to OurFiscalFuture@napawash.org. Questions? Please call 202-204-3653. "The Buck Stops Where? D.C. Influencers Talk About The National Debt," a Public Agenda study done for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative, is online here along with the complete survey results and a Powerpoint with key findings of the research.

Beyond Deepwater: Energy & The Environment

Scott Bittle — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:49:20 -0400

Surveys are showing that the longer the Deepwater spill goes on, the less the public likes offshore drilling – but in that case, where does the energy debate go from here?

That's a key backdrop to the maneuvering around an energy bill, and a Senate vote today on whether the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases like other pollutants. It's safe to say the public isn't focused on those questions: the spotlight is instead on the frustrating news out of the Gulf of Mexico.

It's perhaps no surprise that support for offshore drilling has fallen from 62 percent in 2008, after gas prices hit $4 per gallon, to only 40 percent now, according to a CBS News poll. An ABC/Washington Post survey found support for more drilling dropping from 64 percent last August to 52 percent now.

More surprising, however, is the change in how people see the broader tradeoff between energy and the environment. Since 2007, as energy prices rose, a Gallup poll found more people favoring energy production over environmental protection. It's also pretty typical for people to favor economic concerns in general over the environment during a recession. As recently as March, Gallup found 50 percent who said finding more energy should be a bigger priority, compared to 43 percent who said protecting the environment should be the priority. By May, that had changed to 55 percent who said the environment should be the priority, and 39 percent who favored production.

So what now? The fundamental energy challenge is that the United States, and the world, will need both more energy and cleaner energy. Surveys, including our own research, suggest there are strong areas of public consensus for a new energy policy. But will we grasp onto them? To join the discussion, check out Who Turned Out The Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis and our energy issues Facebook site and Twitter feed.

The Buck Stops Where? D.C. Influencers Talk About The National Debt

Francie Grace — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:15:00 -0400

The "movers and shakers" in Washington are worried about the national debt and believe there are practical solutions for it, but they're just as convinced that partisan politics will block any progress, according to Public Agenda's latest survey, The Buck Stops Where?. At least 85 percent of both policymakers and "opinion elites" surveyed in and around Washington, D.C., agree that "if we do not get the national debt under control, it will overwhelm the federal budget and damage the economy in the long run." Roughly 8 in 10 of these "Beltway influencers" say there are practical policy approaches to the problem, but roughly the same number say pragmatic solutions will be impossible to achieve because of partisan politics. Click here to see the report and see video of a Washington, D.C., panel discussion of the findings of the report. This research was done for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative.

The Buck Stops Where?

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:32:15 -0400

At least 85 percent of both policymakers and "opinion elites" surveyed in and around Washington, D.C., agree that "if we do not get the national debt under control, it will overwhelm the federal budget and damage the economy in the long run." But only 13 percent of policymakers and 9 percent of elites cite the national debt as their top priority, according to The Buck Stops Where?, a Public Agenda survey done for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative.

Roughly 8 in 10 of the "Beltway influencers" surveyed (78 percent of leaders and 83 percent of elites) say there "are at least several practical policy approaches to meet the country's needs without causing the debt to rise." Just as many believe that "there is no realistic way to address the rising national debt by solely cutting spending or solely raising taxes – both cutting spending and raising taxes are required to reduce the debt" (81 percent of leaders and 76 percent of elites say this).

"Beltway influencers" are furthermore highly skeptical that the political system is capable of addressing this issue. Some 78 percent of leaders and 85 percent of elites and say that pragmatic solutions will be impossible to achieve because of partisan politics. And 99 percent of leaders and 98 percent of elites say that relations in Congress have been a period of partisan conflict, up 15 percentage points since the question was last asked in the summer of 2009.

D.C. Leaders Believe in Practical Solutions to the Deficit and National Debt, But Doubt They're Politically Possible

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:52:26 -0400