Brett Keller, MPA
Back in September the New York Times reported on an unexpected finding from a clinical trial: “A promising but expensive device to prop open blocked arteries in the brain in the hope of preventing disabling or fatal strokes failed in a rigorous study.” Many promising medical innovations fall short when they finally reach clinical trials, but this story was unusual because the stents had already been approved by the FDA under a so-called humanitarian exemption. The FDA approved the stents to reduce the risk of stroke, but those who received it had twice as many strokes.
How did this happen? The Times chronicled experts’ puzzlement: “Researchers said the device seemed as if it should work.” And Joseph Broderick, a prominent neurologist, is quoted as saying “Quite frankly, the results were a surprise.” Researchers are delving into this case to discover why the stent failed, but policymakers from all fields should take it as a valuable lesson. This is one more argument for testing policies whenever possible: not only does expert opinion sometimes get things wrong, but without good data there is often no way to really know when they are right.
Similar lessons can be gleaned from the history of surgical response to breast cancer. In The Emperor of All Maladies (2010), a new history of cancer, oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee chronicles the history of such failed interventions as the radical mastectomy. Over a period of decades this brutal procedure – removing the breasts, lymph nodes, and much of the chest muscles – became the tool of choice for surgeons treating breast cancer. In the 1970s rigorous trials comparing radical mastectomy to more limited procedures showed that this terribly disfiguring procedure did not in fact help patients live longer at all. Some surgeons refused to believe the evidence – to believe it would have required them to acknowledge the harm they had done. But eventually the radical mastectomy fell from favor; today it is quite rare. Many similar stories are included in a free e-book titled Testing Treatments (2011).
As a society we’ve come to accept that medical devices should be tested by the most rigorous and neutral means possible, because the stakes are life and death for all of us. Thousands of people faced with deadly illnesses volunteer for clinical trials every year. Some of them survive while others do not, but as a society we are better off when we know what actually works. For every downside, like the delay of a promising treatment until evidence is gathered properly, there is an upside – something we otherwise would have thought is a good idea is revealed not to be helpful at all.
Under normal circumstances most new drugs are weeded out as they face a gauntlet of tests for safety and efficacy required before FDA licensure. The stories of the humanitarian-exemption stent and the radical mastectomy are different because these procedures became more widely used before there was rigorous evidence that they helped, though in both cases there were plenty of anecdotes, case studies, and small or non-controlled studies that made it look like they did. This haphazard, post-hoc testing is analogous to how policy in many other fields, from welfare and education, is developed. Many public policy decisions have considerable impacts on our livelihoods, education, and health. Why are we note similarly outraged by poor standards of evidence that leads to poor outcomes in other fields?
A recent example from New York City helps illustrate how helpful good evidence can be in shaping policy. A few years ago Mayor Michael Bloomberg rolled out a massive program that seemed to make a lot of sense: pay teachers bonuses based on their students’ performance. The common sense proposal was hailed as “transcendent” and gained the support of the teachers’ union. It cost $75 million, and it didn’t work. How do we know? The program was designed from the beginning as a pilot where schools were randomly assigned to the program or to a control group, and the research showing that the program had no effect on outcomes was subsequently published. What would have happened if this policy had been put in place without an effective evaluation plan? In all likelihood New York officials would now be touting its success at conferences and urging other cites to implement similar programs. Instead it was quietly shelved. That this particular program did not have the intended effect is disappointing, but it is much better than if we believed it worked and continued on unaware.
The pros and cons of randomized trials have been discussed here on 14 Points before – see recent posts by Jake Velker and Shawn Powers. The cases I presented here are ones where the results were not “no-brainers” at all, and without systematic evaluation bad policies would have been or tragically were put in place. While good evidence does not have to come from randomized trials, there are still many areas where they are underused. In areas where they are feasible (i.e. not macroeconomics) such evidence should be the norm, and those who implement policies with great optimism but without planning for thoughtful evaluation should be panned. Even without random assignment of the treatment, the best policy evaluations should involve a serious attempt to estimate the counterfactual: what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. Moving beyond arguments over specific programs and whether they work, policymakers can move us towards better outcomes by creating a culture where strong evidence is valued. After all, the clinical trial as we know it in medicine is a 20th century innovation; it hasn’t always been this way.
Showing posts with label Field III (Domestic). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Field III (Domestic). Show all posts
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Occupy Wall Street: Occupying the public discourse
Laura Noonan, MPA
Since the inception of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) in September, critics and commentators have questioned both the motives and tactics of the populist movement. Perhaps the most common objection is that OWS protestors have failed to focus on a single, unifying demand. To be sure, their concerns are broad, and even at times seemingly conflicting. Issues that have been voiced include protesting social and economic inequality, high unemployment, corporate greed and corruption, and the undue influence of corporations – especially financial services firms – on the political process.
The fact is, their demands are far from simple. While some are fairly tangible (e.g. more progressive tax policies), others (like reducing the influence of Wall Street and corporations on the political process) are much more complex, requiring the overall of deeply-embedded systems.
For that reason alone, it was ultimately beneficial for the OWS movement that protestors were recently forced out of Zuccotti Park in New York City and other locations across the country. While an aggressive tactic such as ”occupation” was perhaps necessary to draw initial attention to their cause, over time it was bound to became a war of attrition, one that would be nearly impossible for the protestors to win given the lack of clear solutions to the issues they are protesting.
Semi-permanent encampments also require intense dedication from protestors, tending to draw a higher proportion of the more extreme (less understood, more easily attacked) supporters, while potentially scaring more moderate compatriots away. I, for instance, care deeply about economic and social inequality, but chose for various reasons not to join the protests. To be ultimately successful, the movement of the 99% must gain more support from the 99% of Americans they claim to represent.
In addition, to make changes within our current political system, the movement would be wise to make the distinction that they are protesting against policies which serve to protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us, not the rich themselves. Warren Buffett, who has come out against regressive tax policies, should serve as an example that the wealthiest 1% of Americans are not always the enemy.
The OWS movement does seem to be moving towards more mainstream acceptance, and is now publicly supported by a coalition of more than 70 liberal organizations, including MoveOn.org, several large labor unions, and Planned Parenthood, as well as hundreds of prominent and influential individuals. This could help to provide additional resources, legitimize the movement, and ultimately force a prioritization of demands.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the Occupy Wall Street movement will be able to have the electoral impact needed to achieve many of their stated goals. The Tea Party, a similarly ambitious and unfocused movement, was able to successfully attract candidates to run on a platform representing the movement, and to shift mainstream Republicans’ campaigns in an effort to please Tea Party constituents.
While the long-term impact of the OWS movement is still unclear, it has in many ways already been successful, primarily by starting to reframe the public discourse on inequality.
The top 1% of the individuals in the American economy take home 25% of total income, and own 40% of the wealth. Research has shown that most Americans support a much more equal distribution of resources, but are also optimistically ignorant of the level of inequality that currently exists. But this may be changing as more and more attention is drawn to the issue. The term “income inequality” is appearing more and more frequently in the media, rising from 90 mentions in the week before the protests started to nearly 500 by mid-November.
And while most Americans still think of the United States as a land of opportunity, a 2006 report from the Center for American Progress showed that among high-income countries, only the United Kingdom has a lower rate of intergenerational economic mobility than the United States. For example, children from low-income families in the US have only a 1% chance of reaching the top 5% of the income distribution, versus children of the rich, who have about a 22% chance of doing so. Simply bringing awareness to the current reality has the power to subtly change public opinion that may be based on rosier assumptions.
Getting Americans to understand current social and economic inequalities of opportunity would be an important accomplishment. Whether policies ultimately change to prevent them, however, will depend on whether the country as a whole decides that they no longer find them acceptable.
Since the inception of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) in September, critics and commentators have questioned both the motives and tactics of the populist movement. Perhaps the most common objection is that OWS protestors have failed to focus on a single, unifying demand. To be sure, their concerns are broad, and even at times seemingly conflicting. Issues that have been voiced include protesting social and economic inequality, high unemployment, corporate greed and corruption, and the undue influence of corporations – especially financial services firms – on the political process.
The fact is, their demands are far from simple. While some are fairly tangible (e.g. more progressive tax policies), others (like reducing the influence of Wall Street and corporations on the political process) are much more complex, requiring the overall of deeply-embedded systems.
For that reason alone, it was ultimately beneficial for the OWS movement that protestors were recently forced out of Zuccotti Park in New York City and other locations across the country. While an aggressive tactic such as ”occupation” was perhaps necessary to draw initial attention to their cause, over time it was bound to became a war of attrition, one that would be nearly impossible for the protestors to win given the lack of clear solutions to the issues they are protesting.
Semi-permanent encampments also require intense dedication from protestors, tending to draw a higher proportion of the more extreme (less understood, more easily attacked) supporters, while potentially scaring more moderate compatriots away. I, for instance, care deeply about economic and social inequality, but chose for various reasons not to join the protests. To be ultimately successful, the movement of the 99% must gain more support from the 99% of Americans they claim to represent.
In addition, to make changes within our current political system, the movement would be wise to make the distinction that they are protesting against policies which serve to protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us, not the rich themselves. Warren Buffett, who has come out against regressive tax policies, should serve as an example that the wealthiest 1% of Americans are not always the enemy.
The OWS movement does seem to be moving towards more mainstream acceptance, and is now publicly supported by a coalition of more than 70 liberal organizations, including MoveOn.org, several large labor unions, and Planned Parenthood, as well as hundreds of prominent and influential individuals. This could help to provide additional resources, legitimize the movement, and ultimately force a prioritization of demands.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the Occupy Wall Street movement will be able to have the electoral impact needed to achieve many of their stated goals. The Tea Party, a similarly ambitious and unfocused movement, was able to successfully attract candidates to run on a platform representing the movement, and to shift mainstream Republicans’ campaigns in an effort to please Tea Party constituents.
While the long-term impact of the OWS movement is still unclear, it has in many ways already been successful, primarily by starting to reframe the public discourse on inequality.
The top 1% of the individuals in the American economy take home 25% of total income, and own 40% of the wealth. Research has shown that most Americans support a much more equal distribution of resources, but are also optimistically ignorant of the level of inequality that currently exists. But this may be changing as more and more attention is drawn to the issue. The term “income inequality” is appearing more and more frequently in the media, rising from 90 mentions in the week before the protests started to nearly 500 by mid-November.
And while most Americans still think of the United States as a land of opportunity, a 2006 report from the Center for American Progress showed that among high-income countries, only the United Kingdom has a lower rate of intergenerational economic mobility than the United States. For example, children from low-income families in the US have only a 1% chance of reaching the top 5% of the income distribution, versus children of the rich, who have about a 22% chance of doing so. Simply bringing awareness to the current reality has the power to subtly change public opinion that may be based on rosier assumptions.
Getting Americans to understand current social and economic inequalities of opportunity would be an important accomplishment. Whether policies ultimately change to prevent them, however, will depend on whether the country as a whole decides that they no longer find them acceptable.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Shuttle Shutdown: The future of US space exploration
Madhurita Sengupta, MPA
In January 2004, President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, setting forth executive policy that would send us back to the moon and onto Mars. Though it meant that the end of the Shuttle Program – created in 1981 – was imminent, this promise ignited hope and inspiration in those of us who spent their youths dreaming of “slipping the surly bonds of Earth” (to quote Magee by way of Reagan) and setting foot on extraterrestrial soil, while honoring the legacy of those who’ve made space exploration possible.
And yet, on February 1, 2010, the fabric of our nation’s space program was effectively rewoven, as President Obama announced a new plan for the future of NASA. Constellation, the program that would take us to the moon and onto Mars, was abruptly cancelled. In its place, a crop of commercial efforts would soon be undertaken to ferry US crew and cargo to the International Space Station, effectively freeing resources for NASA to concentrate on developing the next generation of launch and crew vehicles and advanced technologies for future missions. In the meantime, as predicted, the shuttle program officially ended in August of this year, one month after the final flight of the space shuttle Atlantis. (Currently, without a shuttle program, the Russian Soyuz vehicle is our sole mode of transportation to the Space Station, for which the US pays on the order of $60M per seat.)
Many protested Obama’s radically different plan and today, a year and a half after that announcement, NASA sits at a pivotal juncture – one that will determine the future of our nation’s human spaceflight program. The recently passed FY12 budget promised the agency $17B for the fiscal year (which equates to roughly $0.005 per taxpayer), but NASA remains at an impasse. In this budget, Congress has not only cut funding to the commercial efforts, but also attached conditions to this funding contingent on progress made in the development of the next generation launch/crew vehicle, effectively forcing NASA to extend the schedules of both programs, or prematurely choose one commercial provider over another.
Regardless of funding allocations, we, as a nation, now have the opportunity to set the course for the future of human space exploration. Never before has NASA been faced with such apathy and lack of support and funding; and yet, it presents the agency and the nation with a challenge to overcome. How can NASA prove to the administration, Congress, the American public, our international partners, and the rest of the world that it is truly capable of pioneering the future of human spaceflight? Moreover, how can NASA demonstrate that investments in science and technology today are apt to yield dividends of various magnitudes for years to come?
Since the inception of the US human spaceflight program, countless individuals have devoted their livelihoods to further the cause of exploration, to test the limits of mankind’s knowledge and experience, and to expand the boundaries of our terrestrial existence. NASA has been, is, and forever will remain an agency of people who believe in space exploration. It is a collective group of passionate, dedicated workers who are inspired by the contributions of spaceflight to humanity. It is men and women who were awed by Sputnik, by Neil Armstrong’s first steps, by the first joint Russian-American venture in space, by the space shuttle’s maiden voyage, by the building of the International Space Station, piece by piece, before our eyes and who are still inspired on a daily basis by the feats that they themselves help accomplish. They are motivated by man’s innate desire to achieve the impossible, to paraphrase Kennedy, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Our nation now has the opportunity to draw on all of our many impressive years of experience and inspire others to not only marvel at our ingenuity and initiative, but to contribute and invest in it. With the end of the shuttle program, we now stand at a crossroads, at which we are fortunate to have the opportunity to honor those who have given their lives to help mankind escape the gravitational bonds that have tethered us to this lustrous planet for centuries, and explore the recesses of the unknown, bit by bit, in order to understand, appreciate, and provide for our species. No matter what path we ultimately take, let us not forget that we are all passionate about many common things; let us not ignore our inner child, who declared his/her desire to become an astronaut at age eight; and all the while, let us honor the legacies of the past, by embracing the possibilities and potential of the future. We owe those who have sacrificed their lives for the advancement of mankind, who accomplished seemingly impossible tasks, at the very least, that much.
In January 2004, President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, setting forth executive policy that would send us back to the moon and onto Mars. Though it meant that the end of the Shuttle Program – created in 1981 – was imminent, this promise ignited hope and inspiration in those of us who spent their youths dreaming of “slipping the surly bonds of Earth” (to quote Magee by way of Reagan) and setting foot on extraterrestrial soil, while honoring the legacy of those who’ve made space exploration possible.
And yet, on February 1, 2010, the fabric of our nation’s space program was effectively rewoven, as President Obama announced a new plan for the future of NASA. Constellation, the program that would take us to the moon and onto Mars, was abruptly cancelled. In its place, a crop of commercial efforts would soon be undertaken to ferry US crew and cargo to the International Space Station, effectively freeing resources for NASA to concentrate on developing the next generation of launch and crew vehicles and advanced technologies for future missions. In the meantime, as predicted, the shuttle program officially ended in August of this year, one month after the final flight of the space shuttle Atlantis. (Currently, without a shuttle program, the Russian Soyuz vehicle is our sole mode of transportation to the Space Station, for which the US pays on the order of $60M per seat.)
Many protested Obama’s radically different plan and today, a year and a half after that announcement, NASA sits at a pivotal juncture – one that will determine the future of our nation’s human spaceflight program. The recently passed FY12 budget promised the agency $17B for the fiscal year (which equates to roughly $0.005 per taxpayer), but NASA remains at an impasse. In this budget, Congress has not only cut funding to the commercial efforts, but also attached conditions to this funding contingent on progress made in the development of the next generation launch/crew vehicle, effectively forcing NASA to extend the schedules of both programs, or prematurely choose one commercial provider over another.
Regardless of funding allocations, we, as a nation, now have the opportunity to set the course for the future of human space exploration. Never before has NASA been faced with such apathy and lack of support and funding; and yet, it presents the agency and the nation with a challenge to overcome. How can NASA prove to the administration, Congress, the American public, our international partners, and the rest of the world that it is truly capable of pioneering the future of human spaceflight? Moreover, how can NASA demonstrate that investments in science and technology today are apt to yield dividends of various magnitudes for years to come?
Since the inception of the US human spaceflight program, countless individuals have devoted their livelihoods to further the cause of exploration, to test the limits of mankind’s knowledge and experience, and to expand the boundaries of our terrestrial existence. NASA has been, is, and forever will remain an agency of people who believe in space exploration. It is a collective group of passionate, dedicated workers who are inspired by the contributions of spaceflight to humanity. It is men and women who were awed by Sputnik, by Neil Armstrong’s first steps, by the first joint Russian-American venture in space, by the space shuttle’s maiden voyage, by the building of the International Space Station, piece by piece, before our eyes and who are still inspired on a daily basis by the feats that they themselves help accomplish. They are motivated by man’s innate desire to achieve the impossible, to paraphrase Kennedy, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Our nation now has the opportunity to draw on all of our many impressive years of experience and inspire others to not only marvel at our ingenuity and initiative, but to contribute and invest in it. With the end of the shuttle program, we now stand at a crossroads, at which we are fortunate to have the opportunity to honor those who have given their lives to help mankind escape the gravitational bonds that have tethered us to this lustrous planet for centuries, and explore the recesses of the unknown, bit by bit, in order to understand, appreciate, and provide for our species. No matter what path we ultimately take, let us not forget that we are all passionate about many common things; let us not ignore our inner child, who declared his/her desire to become an astronaut at age eight; and all the while, let us honor the legacies of the past, by embracing the possibilities and potential of the future. We owe those who have sacrificed their lives for the advancement of mankind, who accomplished seemingly impossible tasks, at the very least, that much.
Big Business, Small Hands: Changing child labor laws in US agriculture
Megan Corrarino, MPA
Imagine a country where twelve-year-old children work twelve-hour days, where wage theft is rampant, and where child workers handle pesticides, operate hazardous machinery, and engage in other dangerous work that contravenes of the International Labor Organization’s Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. In the US, these are the workplace conditions for roughly half a million children currently working on commercial farms. While most forms of child labor are strictly regulated, a farmwork exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows children to work at younger ages, for longer hours, and under more dangerous conditions than in any other industry in the country.
When the FLSA was created in 1938, agricultural lobbyists convinced Congress that applying the same standards to agriculture would spell the end of the rural way of life. But most children working on farms today are not family farmers’ sons and daughters, rising early to milk cows before school or spending summers learning the family business. Most children today work on commercial farms. They are overwhelmingly migrant, poor, and vulnerable. They perform routine tasks for hours on end, leaving them susceptible to repetitive motion injuries, and are often exposed to highly toxic pesticides and other hazards. An average of 104 child agricultural workers die each year, and over 22,000 are injured – a rate more than four times that in other sectors. Sexual harassment and abuse are commonplace. Children employed on farms, like their adult colleagues, work long hours, are not entitled to overtime, and often move in order to follow the growing season. Half of all child agricultural workers never graduate from high school.
Current farm labor law fails to protect the rights of children in two ways. First, the laws themselves fail to require reasonable working conditions that respect the dignity of child workers and that provide sufficient support and time for schooling. For example, in addition to allowing children to perform hazardous work, current farm labor laws allow 14- and 15-year old children to work unlimited hours – even during the school year. In any other sector, the same children would be restricted to three hours of work a day on school days and eight hours on other days.
Second, agricultural labor laws that do exist are often poorly enforced. Children are particularly vulnerable to rights abuses. The 1983 Migrant and Seasonal Protection Act, for example, guarantees a minimum wage. Although farmers may pay by the pieces picked instead, they are required to make up the difference if that does not reach the set wage. But children often pick on family tickets, making it difficult to determine what they should have been paid and allowing employers to hide the hours worked if children ever try to recover unpaid wages.
A proposed Department of Labor rules change, designed to “bring parity between the rules for agricultural employment and the more stringent rules that apply to the employment of children in nonagricultural workplaces,” would, among other things, limit animal and pesticide handling, prevent children under 16 from working on tobacco farms, and restrict operation of power-driven equipment by children under 16. But even these relatively straightforward changes have faced opposition from a wide range of agricultural lobbyists.
Given the resistance to even these small changes, comprehensive child labor reform will be a political challenge. But it is nevertheless necessary; child workers in agriculture typically work out of economic necessity and are among our country’s most vulnerable workers. Workplace laws must protect their fundamental human rights.
One bundle of suggested reforms, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE Act), HR 3564, would apply the same workplace standards to agricultural child workers as are currently applied to others. (It would still include a family farm exemption.) Crucially, because enforcement of labor law is often challenging, particularly in agriculture, it would require better data collection by the Department of Labor and would raise the fines for violations from $11,000 to $15,000 – making employers less willing to take a risk.
Advocates for the CARE Act are currently lobbying with a non-traditional coalition of agricultural unions, members of Congress, filmmakers, Hollywood stars, and human rights organizations. Successful advocacy will require continued public mobilization and creative alliance-building – perhaps drawing on coalitions of workers in other informal sectors, or parlaying the growing national interest in food policy to highlight labor practices in the food production chain. As Edward R. Murrow observed in The Harvest of Shame, a 1960 documentary that reflected agricultural working conditions strikingly similar to today’s, “The migrants have no lobby…Maybe we do.”
Imagine a country where twelve-year-old children work twelve-hour days, where wage theft is rampant, and where child workers handle pesticides, operate hazardous machinery, and engage in other dangerous work that contravenes of the International Labor Organization’s Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. In the US, these are the workplace conditions for roughly half a million children currently working on commercial farms. While most forms of child labor are strictly regulated, a farmwork exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows children to work at younger ages, for longer hours, and under more dangerous conditions than in any other industry in the country.
When the FLSA was created in 1938, agricultural lobbyists convinced Congress that applying the same standards to agriculture would spell the end of the rural way of life. But most children working on farms today are not family farmers’ sons and daughters, rising early to milk cows before school or spending summers learning the family business. Most children today work on commercial farms. They are overwhelmingly migrant, poor, and vulnerable. They perform routine tasks for hours on end, leaving them susceptible to repetitive motion injuries, and are often exposed to highly toxic pesticides and other hazards. An average of 104 child agricultural workers die each year, and over 22,000 are injured – a rate more than four times that in other sectors. Sexual harassment and abuse are commonplace. Children employed on farms, like their adult colleagues, work long hours, are not entitled to overtime, and often move in order to follow the growing season. Half of all child agricultural workers never graduate from high school.
Current farm labor law fails to protect the rights of children in two ways. First, the laws themselves fail to require reasonable working conditions that respect the dignity of child workers and that provide sufficient support and time for schooling. For example, in addition to allowing children to perform hazardous work, current farm labor laws allow 14- and 15-year old children to work unlimited hours – even during the school year. In any other sector, the same children would be restricted to three hours of work a day on school days and eight hours on other days.
Second, agricultural labor laws that do exist are often poorly enforced. Children are particularly vulnerable to rights abuses. The 1983 Migrant and Seasonal Protection Act, for example, guarantees a minimum wage. Although farmers may pay by the pieces picked instead, they are required to make up the difference if that does not reach the set wage. But children often pick on family tickets, making it difficult to determine what they should have been paid and allowing employers to hide the hours worked if children ever try to recover unpaid wages.
A proposed Department of Labor rules change, designed to “bring parity between the rules for agricultural employment and the more stringent rules that apply to the employment of children in nonagricultural workplaces,” would, among other things, limit animal and pesticide handling, prevent children under 16 from working on tobacco farms, and restrict operation of power-driven equipment by children under 16. But even these relatively straightforward changes have faced opposition from a wide range of agricultural lobbyists.
Given the resistance to even these small changes, comprehensive child labor reform will be a political challenge. But it is nevertheless necessary; child workers in agriculture typically work out of economic necessity and are among our country’s most vulnerable workers. Workplace laws must protect their fundamental human rights.
One bundle of suggested reforms, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE Act), HR 3564, would apply the same workplace standards to agricultural child workers as are currently applied to others. (It would still include a family farm exemption.) Crucially, because enforcement of labor law is often challenging, particularly in agriculture, it would require better data collection by the Department of Labor and would raise the fines for violations from $11,000 to $15,000 – making employers less willing to take a risk.
Advocates for the CARE Act are currently lobbying with a non-traditional coalition of agricultural unions, members of Congress, filmmakers, Hollywood stars, and human rights organizations. Successful advocacy will require continued public mobilization and creative alliance-building – perhaps drawing on coalitions of workers in other informal sectors, or parlaying the growing national interest in food policy to highlight labor practices in the food production chain. As Edward R. Murrow observed in The Harvest of Shame, a 1960 documentary that reflected agricultural working conditions strikingly similar to today’s, “The migrants have no lobby…Maybe we do.”
Friday, November 25, 2011
Saving Congress From Itself: Can the Independent Payment Advisory Board make Congress’s Medicare cost control problems go away?
David Mitchell, MPA
With the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction – a.k.a., the Super Committee – missing a major deadline this week, the prospects for a debt deal before the next election seem bleaker than ever.
Eventually, Congress will have to act. The long-term deficit situation is truly unsustainable and the sequestration trigger agreed upon in August will begin sharply cutting Defense Department programs and Medicare provider payments in January 2013 (assuming Congress and the President allow it to stay in effect).
But for those hoping that responsible decision-making on the country’s entitlement and tax programs will materialize after next year’s election, prepare to be disappointed. In particular, Medicare – the public health insurance program for the aged and disabled, and by far the largest contributor to our long-term fiscal mess – has been subject to congressional mismanagement now for years.
As Wes Joines pointed out in a post earlier this month, the Medicare physician payment system is broken and has been so for more than a decade. Private insurance carriers that participate in the Medicare Advantage program have been overpaid since 2003, when the Republican-controlled Congress set artificially high payment rates as part of the same bill that expanded subsidized prescription drugs at the government's expense. And members of both parties have proven themselves unable to withstand the temptation of using the Medicare program to steer benefits to special interests. Whether it’s boosting payments to rural hospitals, delaying competitive bidding for durable medical equipment, or shielding beneficiaries from scheduled benefit cuts, there are many recent examples of costly Congressional micromanaging on both sides of the aisle.
Underlying this mismanagement is a simple political calculus: members of Congress believe that they must avoid being linked to any policy that will hurt the country’s 47 million Medicare beneficiaries (not to mention the tens of millions more about to join the program) or risk defeat at the polls. Cutting benefits is one obvious no-no, but cutting provider payments is also politically dangerous, since doctors and hospitals may then stop treating Medicare patients or otherwise incite seniors’ anger.
So what can be done? One hope is that legislators themselves may be looking for a way out of this Medicare cost-control political vortex, especially given the hard decisions that most political elites know will have to be made as part of an eventual debt reduction deal.
One sign of this thinking is Congress’s recent decision to establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as part of last year’s health reform legislation.[1] The IPAB is designed to take Medicare payment policymaking out of the hands of Congress and put it into the hands of expert technocrats. Though the IPAB was not a major focus of the yearlong debate on health care legislation (Americans were otherwise obsessed with abortion, the public option, and death panels[2]), it may prove to be one of the most consequential provisions included in the ACA. In the words of former budget director Peter Orszag, IPAB represents “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”
Here’s how it works: A 15-member board appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate will propose sharp cuts to Medicare payments if cost growth in the program continues on its current trajectory. What makes this Board different from past Medicare commissions – or even the current Super Committee – is that the recommended cuts will go into effect unless Congress finds equal savings elsewhere in the program or supermajorities in Congress vote to waive the new rules (and even then only if the president signs the resulting bill). There is concern that future Congresses will not allow themselves to be constrained by these parliamentary hurdles and will try to prevent the cuts by simply not confirming IPAB appointees or passing a new law revoking some or all of IPAB’s powers. But the IPAB provision includes rules to check these congressional urges, so there is reason to believe that IPAB will have teeth.
Beyond the technical details, one’s optimism about the Board depends in large part on what one believes is ailing the US health care system. If high prices are the culprit (as many on the left believe), IPAB could prove effective at withstanding political pressure from doctors, hospitals, and other providers and keeping prices low. If over-utilization is the main cost driver (as many on the right believe), IPAB’s usefulness will be limited. This is partly by design: currently, the Board can only recommend changes to provider payment rates, not benefits.
But many outside experts – including some who sat on the US Fiscal Commission last year – recommend expanding IPAB’s powers. And the president has urged Congress to lower IPAB’s cost growth rate target, making it more likely that recommendations will be triggered. Some have even speculated that IPAB could be the vehicle by which a new all-payer rate setting scheme could be implemented.
It’s unlikely that Congress will go along with any of the above proposals any time soon. Indeed, many in Congress have called for IPAB’s repeal. And it’s true that further empowering a board of unelected technocrats is not an easy sell to the American people (especially since the biggest problems facing Medicare – and the federal budget as a whole – require moral, not mathematical, answers). But as the extent of our long-term structural deficit becomes more apparent – and the situation grows more urgent – members of Congress may be tempted to delegate more and more tough decisions to IPAB. Some might view this as an undemocratic and irresponsible abdication of authority – in other words, the coward’s way out. But as Edgar Allan Poe once wrote: “That man is not truly brave who is afraid either to seem or to be, when it suits him, a coward.”
With the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction – a.k.a., the Super Committee – missing a major deadline this week, the prospects for a debt deal before the next election seem bleaker than ever.
Eventually, Congress will have to act. The long-term deficit situation is truly unsustainable and the sequestration trigger agreed upon in August will begin sharply cutting Defense Department programs and Medicare provider payments in January 2013 (assuming Congress and the President allow it to stay in effect).
But for those hoping that responsible decision-making on the country’s entitlement and tax programs will materialize after next year’s election, prepare to be disappointed. In particular, Medicare – the public health insurance program for the aged and disabled, and by far the largest contributor to our long-term fiscal mess – has been subject to congressional mismanagement now for years.
As Wes Joines pointed out in a post earlier this month, the Medicare physician payment system is broken and has been so for more than a decade. Private insurance carriers that participate in the Medicare Advantage program have been overpaid since 2003, when the Republican-controlled Congress set artificially high payment rates as part of the same bill that expanded subsidized prescription drugs at the government's expense. And members of both parties have proven themselves unable to withstand the temptation of using the Medicare program to steer benefits to special interests. Whether it’s boosting payments to rural hospitals, delaying competitive bidding for durable medical equipment, or shielding beneficiaries from scheduled benefit cuts, there are many recent examples of costly Congressional micromanaging on both sides of the aisle.
Underlying this mismanagement is a simple political calculus: members of Congress believe that they must avoid being linked to any policy that will hurt the country’s 47 million Medicare beneficiaries (not to mention the tens of millions more about to join the program) or risk defeat at the polls. Cutting benefits is one obvious no-no, but cutting provider payments is also politically dangerous, since doctors and hospitals may then stop treating Medicare patients or otherwise incite seniors’ anger.
So what can be done? One hope is that legislators themselves may be looking for a way out of this Medicare cost-control political vortex, especially given the hard decisions that most political elites know will have to be made as part of an eventual debt reduction deal.
One sign of this thinking is Congress’s recent decision to establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as part of last year’s health reform legislation.[1] The IPAB is designed to take Medicare payment policymaking out of the hands of Congress and put it into the hands of expert technocrats. Though the IPAB was not a major focus of the yearlong debate on health care legislation (Americans were otherwise obsessed with abortion, the public option, and death panels[2]), it may prove to be one of the most consequential provisions included in the ACA. In the words of former budget director Peter Orszag, IPAB represents “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”
Here’s how it works: A 15-member board appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate will propose sharp cuts to Medicare payments if cost growth in the program continues on its current trajectory. What makes this Board different from past Medicare commissions – or even the current Super Committee – is that the recommended cuts will go into effect unless Congress finds equal savings elsewhere in the program or supermajorities in Congress vote to waive the new rules (and even then only if the president signs the resulting bill). There is concern that future Congresses will not allow themselves to be constrained by these parliamentary hurdles and will try to prevent the cuts by simply not confirming IPAB appointees or passing a new law revoking some or all of IPAB’s powers. But the IPAB provision includes rules to check these congressional urges, so there is reason to believe that IPAB will have teeth.
Beyond the technical details, one’s optimism about the Board depends in large part on what one believes is ailing the US health care system. If high prices are the culprit (as many on the left believe), IPAB could prove effective at withstanding political pressure from doctors, hospitals, and other providers and keeping prices low. If over-utilization is the main cost driver (as many on the right believe), IPAB’s usefulness will be limited. This is partly by design: currently, the Board can only recommend changes to provider payment rates, not benefits.
But many outside experts – including some who sat on the US Fiscal Commission last year – recommend expanding IPAB’s powers. And the president has urged Congress to lower IPAB’s cost growth rate target, making it more likely that recommendations will be triggered. Some have even speculated that IPAB could be the vehicle by which a new all-payer rate setting scheme could be implemented.
It’s unlikely that Congress will go along with any of the above proposals any time soon. Indeed, many in Congress have called for IPAB’s repeal. And it’s true that further empowering a board of unelected technocrats is not an easy sell to the American people (especially since the biggest problems facing Medicare – and the federal budget as a whole – require moral, not mathematical, answers). But as the extent of our long-term structural deficit becomes more apparent – and the situation grows more urgent – members of Congress may be tempted to delegate more and more tough decisions to IPAB. Some might view this as an undemocratic and irresponsible abdication of authority – in other words, the coward’s way out. But as Edgar Allan Poe once wrote: “That man is not truly brave who is afraid either to seem or to be, when it suits him, a coward.”
----------------------
Notes
[1] The Affordable Care Act also created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMI), which has broad powers to experiment with new payment systems like accountable care organizations and bundling, and then apply the most successful models nationwide – all without further congressional action. This is a promising idea, but the Congressional Budget Office and others are skeptical of its cost-saving potential and so it will not figure as prominently as IPAB in debt reduction negotiations.
[2] Since the bill’s passage, some have used the “death panel” moniker to describe IPAB, but during the debate that phrase was used in reference to a provision that attempted to expand the use of living wills.
Friday, November 11, 2011
New Year's Irresolution: Medicare’s sustainable growth rate and physician reimbursement
Wes Joines, MPA
Unless Congress acts between now and the end of 2011, at least one group will not be experiencing a happy New Year: physicians who provide services to Medicare patients. Under current law, starting in 2012, reimbursement for Medicare-provided services will be reduced by an estimated 30%. Why is this happening? It is all related to policies enacted nearly 15 years ago in an earlier iteration of debt reduction efforts.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was signed into law on August 5, 1997 and was designed to balance the federal budget by 2002. Of its $160 billion in spending cuts during that time period, $112 billion was applicable to the Medicare program, which is the primary health coverage program for older and some disabled Americans. A key component of the cuts to Medicare included, for the first time, a budgetary restraint on Medicare’s total expenditures to maintain budget neutrality. Known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR), it is a major component of the current formula for determining annual updates to physician reimbursement. While Medicare payment rate increases since 1992 had been tied to trends in physician utilization (i.e. efficient use of medical tests and facilities by a doctor), in 1997, for the first time, the implementation of the SGR meant that Medicare reimbursement changes would be linked to four factors: 1) changes in input costs, 2) changes in Medicare fee-for-service enrollment, 3) changes in the volume of physician services relative to growth in the national economy, and 4) changes in expenditures due to changes in law and/or regulation.
The SGR resulted in annual increases to the Medicare fee schedule until 2002, when a 4.8% reduction took place. Since that time, rate reductions called for by the formula have been deferred, although Congress has not changed the underlying SGR formula or the cumulative spending targets. Because of vast increases in the volume and complexity of health care services for the Medicare population in recent years, especially when compared to the SGR designers’ projections, the formula specifies cuts in physician payments that become more severe with each passing year. In fact, at a cost of $19 billion, a last-minute December 2010 vote delayed a scheduled 25% reduction in the SGR that was to take place in January 2011.
So, here we are again, this time in late 2011, deciding whether or not reimbursement for Medicare providers will be cut. Even before the current debt reduction debate and increasing prevalence of political gridlock in Congress, policy movement regarding the SGR involved numerous short-term fixes. For example, from 2003 through 2010, Congress included provisions in 13 separate pieces of legislation to forestall reimbursement cuts. As a long-term fix for the SGR – e.g. replacing it with a current fee freeze – would be extremely costly to the taxpayer (some estimates currently peg it around $300 billion over 10 years), short-term fixes have generally proved to be an easier bargain (as much as they have irritated physicians and their respective trade associations).
At this point, anyone’s guess is as good as another’s regarding the level of reimbursement for Medicare services on January 1, 2012. Although the current political climate is not one that generally supports massive spending to doctors that would be required for a long-term fix, many believe that cuts of the magnitude prescribed by the SGR would not be conducive to ensuring beneficiary access to services. Therefore, another short-term fix might be in the works as a stop-gap measure. However, there is also a chance that the currently-convened deficit reduction “Super Committee” might address the SGR as part of its proceedings.
If compromise is within reach, within or outside of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, it may be similar to a plan recently recommend by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), which ironically enough, was also established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and serves as an independent advisor to Congress. MedPAC’s plan, which would cost $200 billion over 10 years (instead of the $300 billion of the fee freeze), would protect both primary care and specialty physicians from the deep cuts called for by SGR. Primary care physicians would see physician fees associated with Medicare services frozen for 10 years, while specialists would see smaller cuts (of 5.9% per year) over the first three years that would then remain frozen for the remaining seven years in the budget window.
Granted, MedPAC’s suggestion is not a panacea, but it is a good start. At the very least, it should focus us on attempting to resolve this looming crisis.
Unless Congress acts between now and the end of 2011, at least one group will not be experiencing a happy New Year: physicians who provide services to Medicare patients. Under current law, starting in 2012, reimbursement for Medicare-provided services will be reduced by an estimated 30%. Why is this happening? It is all related to policies enacted nearly 15 years ago in an earlier iteration of debt reduction efforts.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was signed into law on August 5, 1997 and was designed to balance the federal budget by 2002. Of its $160 billion in spending cuts during that time period, $112 billion was applicable to the Medicare program, which is the primary health coverage program for older and some disabled Americans. A key component of the cuts to Medicare included, for the first time, a budgetary restraint on Medicare’s total expenditures to maintain budget neutrality. Known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR), it is a major component of the current formula for determining annual updates to physician reimbursement. While Medicare payment rate increases since 1992 had been tied to trends in physician utilization (i.e. efficient use of medical tests and facilities by a doctor), in 1997, for the first time, the implementation of the SGR meant that Medicare reimbursement changes would be linked to four factors: 1) changes in input costs, 2) changes in Medicare fee-for-service enrollment, 3) changes in the volume of physician services relative to growth in the national economy, and 4) changes in expenditures due to changes in law and/or regulation.
The SGR resulted in annual increases to the Medicare fee schedule until 2002, when a 4.8% reduction took place. Since that time, rate reductions called for by the formula have been deferred, although Congress has not changed the underlying SGR formula or the cumulative spending targets. Because of vast increases in the volume and complexity of health care services for the Medicare population in recent years, especially when compared to the SGR designers’ projections, the formula specifies cuts in physician payments that become more severe with each passing year. In fact, at a cost of $19 billion, a last-minute December 2010 vote delayed a scheduled 25% reduction in the SGR that was to take place in January 2011.
So, here we are again, this time in late 2011, deciding whether or not reimbursement for Medicare providers will be cut. Even before the current debt reduction debate and increasing prevalence of political gridlock in Congress, policy movement regarding the SGR involved numerous short-term fixes. For example, from 2003 through 2010, Congress included provisions in 13 separate pieces of legislation to forestall reimbursement cuts. As a long-term fix for the SGR – e.g. replacing it with a current fee freeze – would be extremely costly to the taxpayer (some estimates currently peg it around $300 billion over 10 years), short-term fixes have generally proved to be an easier bargain (as much as they have irritated physicians and their respective trade associations).
At this point, anyone’s guess is as good as another’s regarding the level of reimbursement for Medicare services on January 1, 2012. Although the current political climate is not one that generally supports massive spending to doctors that would be required for a long-term fix, many believe that cuts of the magnitude prescribed by the SGR would not be conducive to ensuring beneficiary access to services. Therefore, another short-term fix might be in the works as a stop-gap measure. However, there is also a chance that the currently-convened deficit reduction “Super Committee” might address the SGR as part of its proceedings.
If compromise is within reach, within or outside of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, it may be similar to a plan recently recommend by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), which ironically enough, was also established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and serves as an independent advisor to Congress. MedPAC’s plan, which would cost $200 billion over 10 years (instead of the $300 billion of the fee freeze), would protect both primary care and specialty physicians from the deep cuts called for by SGR. Primary care physicians would see physician fees associated with Medicare services frozen for 10 years, while specialists would see smaller cuts (of 5.9% per year) over the first three years that would then remain frozen for the remaining seven years in the budget window.
Granted, MedPAC’s suggestion is not a panacea, but it is a good start. At the very least, it should focus us on attempting to resolve this looming crisis.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Chugga Chugga Moo Moo: Developing Cow Power
Carol Lu, MPA
While solar and wind power have become synonymous with renewable energy, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made it a priority to support the commercialization of a much less glamorous source of energy – dairy biogas from digester systems. Biogas (bio-gas) is gas produced by the biological breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen, and digester systems are industrial structures designed to capture that material. Located on the dairy farms themselves, digesters capture biogas from manure, transforming waste to energy. These systems benefit the environment by reducing water pollution from nutrient run-off. And, they represent a potential business opportunity. Even in this win-win situation, the current nascent digester industry is not economically sustainable: electricity sales to the wholesale market don’t justify capital costs. Entrepreneurs may make inroads to costs through “learning” on operations, but more is needed to push the industry toward profitability.
As a key environmental player with strong connections to local regulatory agencies and regulated entities, the EPA can help to increase digester project revenues in two ways:
While solar and wind power have become synonymous with renewable energy, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made it a priority to support the commercialization of a much less glamorous source of energy – dairy biogas from digester systems. Biogas (bio-gas) is gas produced by the biological breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen, and digester systems are industrial structures designed to capture that material. Located on the dairy farms themselves, digesters capture biogas from manure, transforming waste to energy. These systems benefit the environment by reducing water pollution from nutrient run-off. And, they represent a potential business opportunity. Even in this win-win situation, the current nascent digester industry is not economically sustainable: electricity sales to the wholesale market don’t justify capital costs. Entrepreneurs may make inroads to costs through “learning” on operations, but more is needed to push the industry toward profitability.
As a key environmental player with strong connections to local regulatory agencies and regulated entities, the EPA can help to increase digester project revenues in two ways:
- Reduce barriers to co-digestion. Because restaurant grease has high energy potential, co-digestion of these wastes with manure would allow projects to generate double or triple the electricity at nearly the same costs. In addition, digester developers could charge restaurants a tipping fee to dispose of their grease. These additional revenue streams could make a project profitable. Unfortunately, co-digestion in areas like California is nearly impossible because of strict environmental permitting standards. The EPA should work with local agencies to develop a fast-tracked permitting exception for diary digester projects in states where co-digestion is not permitted.
- Facilitate direct partnerships between large electricity end-users and digester projects. By directly providing electricity to an end-user rather than selling electricity to the wholesale market, a project developer is able to obtain a higher price for its renewable energy. Higher prices mean higher revenues. As an agency that regulates both large industrial electricity users and small dairies, the EPA is in a unique position to match these parties together. Thus, the EPA should develop an internal process in which those that work with large electricity users in the air permitting office collaborate with those that work with dairies in the water and agriculture offices. With sufficient support from the top, this intra-agency working group has the potential to bridge this critical gap.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Immigration: The costs of a broken system
Sebastian Chaskel, MPA
On October 14th and 15th Princeton’s campus hosted Voz Latina 2011, the third annual symposium organized by the university’s Office of Academic Affairs and Diversity and the Latino Graduate Student Association in honor of Latino Heritage Month. This year’s topic: "Immigration in the 21st Century—the Costs of a Broken System."
The conference organizers could not have chosen a more opportune moment for a conversation on immigration. While the percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States has skyrocketed from 5% in the 1960s to 13% today, some state governments are implementing the strongest anti-immigrant policies the country has ever seen, reflecting a strong xenophobia in certain regions. The United States’ 11.2 million undocumented immigrants—half of them Mexican—now represent 5% of the US labor force. Yet they continue to work in the shadows, lacking the rights and protections that the rest of the population enjoys. As Princeton Professor Douglas Massey commented in his presentation, the structural conditions are being created for a semi-permanent underclass in the United States.
The symposium’s guests highlighted the elevated costs of a broken system. Enrique Morones, the founder of Border Angels, mentioned that about 10,000 people have died on the US-Mexico border attempting to cross it. His organization places water, blankets, and food on the border in an attempt to prevent further deaths, and records the stories of those that have perished in order to give a human face to the statistics. Professor Jorge Bustamante from Notre Dame University commented on his findings as UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants from 2005 to 2011. During this time, he witnessed constitutional violations executed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) agents who entered homes without warrants and seized occupants without legal bases. At the time the US government questioned Bustamante’s accusation, but a 2009 report by the Immigration Justice Clinic at Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School, Constitution on Ice, seconded Bustamante’s findings, “reveal[ing] an established pattern of misconduct by ICE agents” in the region covered by the study.
Princeton Professor Patricia Fernandez-Kelly argued that undocumented immigrants are more likely than others to suffer from the country’s broken health system. Her research shows that those that choose to immigrate to the United States are healthier than the average person in their countries of origin, but health problems emerge once they enter the United States. As immigrants assimilate, they and their descendents pick up unhealthy smoking, drinking, and eating habits, along with the diseases that accompany them, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Their health is further impaired by limited access to health services due to state and local policies nationwide which limit immigrant access to basic medical care. New Jersey and Miami-Dade County stand out for the services they offer immigrant populations, while San Diego is notorious for its barriers to health access.
Professor Marta Tienda focused on Latino education trends, lamenting that although 16% of the American population is Hispanic, only 6% of college degree holders identify as such. She implored the Latino students present to do their part by encouraging and assisting other Hispanics in their college application processes. “Bring along two others, one in each hand,” Professor Tienda urged.
The national immigration correspondent for the New York Times, Julia Preston, explained that the harsh state anti-immigration laws being implemented across the country, such as Alabama’s HB56, and Arizona’s SB 1070, reflect the disagreements between states and the federal government over immigration reform. Professor Massey argued that these and other restrictive developments, such as greater border control, have not decreased illegal immigration, but have encouraged illegal immigrants to “hunker down” in the US, as the costs of traveling home and returning have increased. “Coyotes,” or smugglers, now charges $5,000-$7,000 per person brought to the country, compared to $1,000 or $2,000 just five years ago. Illegal migration has dropped in recent years, but this is due to decreased job openings in the United States, greater legal migration opportunities, and reduced fertility in Mexico. As a result, there is a net inflow of zero illegal immigrants to the U.S. now—fewer people are coming, but fewer people are also going back.
In terms of what should be done, both Professor Bustamante and Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) Professor Denise Dresser argued that the ideal policy response would be a bilateral agreement between Mexico and the United States on immigration. Legislative reform by nature is unilateral, Bustamante explained, and will therefore not be able to solve a bilateral problem. Such an agreement was on the table when Vicente Fox and George W. Bush led Mexico and the US, respectively, but the notion of a bilateral agreement disappeared on September 11, 2001. Immigration is now seen through a prism of security and thus such an agreement is no longer a viable option.
Professor Massey argued that the US is closer to passing comprehensive immigration reform than most think. The border is now secure and a system by which Mexicans and others can apply to work in the United States is already in place. The one outstanding issue is dealing with the 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the country, and Massey sees the only feasible and humane policy choice as 1) granting automatic legal status to everyone who was brought illegally to the US as a child, and 2) creating a system by which those that came as adults can gain citizenship.
Julia Preston predicted that policymakers will not touch immigration reform until after the 2012 presidential election due to the sensitivity of the subject to constituents. Professor Massey explained that the uneasiness many middle-age Americans feels about the increasing level of foreign-born residents in the US can be partly explained in that they came to age in the 1950s-60s, a time in which the foreign-born percentage of US residents was at an exceptional low of about 5%. The current 14% is closer to the country’s historical record, but it is nevertheless s a new reality for that generation. Professor Dresser emphasized that it is in both the United States’ and Mexico’s interest to find a sustainable solution and encouraged those interested in seeing reform, including the Mexican government, to pressure American legislators at a local level in order to create the incentives for reform.
A population of 11 million residing in the US without access to basic rights clashes with the values American society purports to uphold. While there was variance among the participants as to the best policy choice and the most efficient strategy to achieve reform, there was unanimous agreement in recognizing that the current situation is inhumane, dangerous, and unsustainable. Lest the United States become a country with permanent first- and second-class citizens, with different sets of rights and protections, immigration reform should be an urgent priority for the country’s decision makers.
On October 14th and 15th Princeton’s campus hosted Voz Latina 2011, the third annual symposium organized by the university’s Office of Academic Affairs and Diversity and the Latino Graduate Student Association in honor of Latino Heritage Month. This year’s topic: "Immigration in the 21st Century—the Costs of a Broken System."
The conference organizers could not have chosen a more opportune moment for a conversation on immigration. While the percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States has skyrocketed from 5% in the 1960s to 13% today, some state governments are implementing the strongest anti-immigrant policies the country has ever seen, reflecting a strong xenophobia in certain regions. The United States’ 11.2 million undocumented immigrants—half of them Mexican—now represent 5% of the US labor force. Yet they continue to work in the shadows, lacking the rights and protections that the rest of the population enjoys. As Princeton Professor Douglas Massey commented in his presentation, the structural conditions are being created for a semi-permanent underclass in the United States.
The symposium’s guests highlighted the elevated costs of a broken system. Enrique Morones, the founder of Border Angels, mentioned that about 10,000 people have died on the US-Mexico border attempting to cross it. His organization places water, blankets, and food on the border in an attempt to prevent further deaths, and records the stories of those that have perished in order to give a human face to the statistics. Professor Jorge Bustamante from Notre Dame University commented on his findings as UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants from 2005 to 2011. During this time, he witnessed constitutional violations executed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) agents who entered homes without warrants and seized occupants without legal bases. At the time the US government questioned Bustamante’s accusation, but a 2009 report by the Immigration Justice Clinic at Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School, Constitution on Ice, seconded Bustamante’s findings, “reveal[ing] an established pattern of misconduct by ICE agents” in the region covered by the study.
Princeton Professor Patricia Fernandez-Kelly argued that undocumented immigrants are more likely than others to suffer from the country’s broken health system. Her research shows that those that choose to immigrate to the United States are healthier than the average person in their countries of origin, but health problems emerge once they enter the United States. As immigrants assimilate, they and their descendents pick up unhealthy smoking, drinking, and eating habits, along with the diseases that accompany them, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Their health is further impaired by limited access to health services due to state and local policies nationwide which limit immigrant access to basic medical care. New Jersey and Miami-Dade County stand out for the services they offer immigrant populations, while San Diego is notorious for its barriers to health access.
Professor Marta Tienda focused on Latino education trends, lamenting that although 16% of the American population is Hispanic, only 6% of college degree holders identify as such. She implored the Latino students present to do their part by encouraging and assisting other Hispanics in their college application processes. “Bring along two others, one in each hand,” Professor Tienda urged.
The national immigration correspondent for the New York Times, Julia Preston, explained that the harsh state anti-immigration laws being implemented across the country, such as Alabama’s HB56, and Arizona’s SB 1070, reflect the disagreements between states and the federal government over immigration reform. Professor Massey argued that these and other restrictive developments, such as greater border control, have not decreased illegal immigration, but have encouraged illegal immigrants to “hunker down” in the US, as the costs of traveling home and returning have increased. “Coyotes,” or smugglers, now charges $5,000-$7,000 per person brought to the country, compared to $1,000 or $2,000 just five years ago. Illegal migration has dropped in recent years, but this is due to decreased job openings in the United States, greater legal migration opportunities, and reduced fertility in Mexico. As a result, there is a net inflow of zero illegal immigrants to the U.S. now—fewer people are coming, but fewer people are also going back.
In terms of what should be done, both Professor Bustamante and Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) Professor Denise Dresser argued that the ideal policy response would be a bilateral agreement between Mexico and the United States on immigration. Legislative reform by nature is unilateral, Bustamante explained, and will therefore not be able to solve a bilateral problem. Such an agreement was on the table when Vicente Fox and George W. Bush led Mexico and the US, respectively, but the notion of a bilateral agreement disappeared on September 11, 2001. Immigration is now seen through a prism of security and thus such an agreement is no longer a viable option.
Professor Massey argued that the US is closer to passing comprehensive immigration reform than most think. The border is now secure and a system by which Mexicans and others can apply to work in the United States is already in place. The one outstanding issue is dealing with the 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the country, and Massey sees the only feasible and humane policy choice as 1) granting automatic legal status to everyone who was brought illegally to the US as a child, and 2) creating a system by which those that came as adults can gain citizenship.
Julia Preston predicted that policymakers will not touch immigration reform until after the 2012 presidential election due to the sensitivity of the subject to constituents. Professor Massey explained that the uneasiness many middle-age Americans feels about the increasing level of foreign-born residents in the US can be partly explained in that they came to age in the 1950s-60s, a time in which the foreign-born percentage of US residents was at an exceptional low of about 5%. The current 14% is closer to the country’s historical record, but it is nevertheless s a new reality for that generation. Professor Dresser emphasized that it is in both the United States’ and Mexico’s interest to find a sustainable solution and encouraged those interested in seeing reform, including the Mexican government, to pressure American legislators at a local level in order to create the incentives for reform.
A population of 11 million residing in the US without access to basic rights clashes with the values American society purports to uphold. While there was variance among the participants as to the best policy choice and the most efficient strategy to achieve reform, there was unanimous agreement in recognizing that the current situation is inhumane, dangerous, and unsustainable. Lest the United States become a country with permanent first- and second-class citizens, with different sets of rights and protections, immigration reform should be an urgent priority for the country’s decision makers.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Attention Women: RUN!
Christina Henderson, MPA
Back in the day when Michele Bachmann was leading in the Republican presidential primary (i.e., this summer), I was doubled over with grief at the idea that she could be first. Call me crazy, but I hope whoever achieves the honor of becoming the first woman to win the presidential nomination of major political party does not have to be convinced that the Founding Fathers did not in fact outlaw slavery.
Now that Bachmann’s star has fallen, I am concerned that neither political party has a deep enough bench to field a viable female candidate for president in the next three years. Currently, there are only six women serving as governors, 17 women in the United States Senate, and 72 in the House of Representatives. If we control for age, experience, name recognition, likability, alternative ambitions, and public displays of wackiness (yes, this is applies to male candidates too because wackiness knows no bounds), the numbers look even bleaker. We have got to get more women off the sidelines and into the field!
A 2009 study conducted by Stanford University and the University of Chicago found that on average, women in Congress introduce more legislation, attract more co-sponsors, and secure more resources for their districts and states than their male counterparts. In general, women in government are known to get things done and not take no for an answer. This is not to diminish the impact of men, but there are times when the fortitude and deep abiding commitment of women is stronger than that of said counterparts. And at this time in our nation’s history, it is needed.
In the last ten months, we’ve witnessed an unbelievable war on women across the country. From "forcible rape" to Planned Parenthood, from the assault on public employees (the majority of whom are female) to allowing hospitals to deny pregnant women life-saving care, can we please call off the vultures?! Now, I am not expecting every woman who decides to run for office to be progressive and pro-choice (it would be nice, but I’m realistic). However, when a city decides to decriminalize domestic violence over a budget dispute with its county counterparts, I would hope all the women could come together as a collective and say: “Are you serious?!”
We need more women running and serving in public office. Now, I would be remiss not to mention the difficulties involved in running for office. As a veteran campaign staffer, I know campaigns are not for the fainthearted. They are tough—physically, mentally, and spiritually. And for women—Democrat or Republican—it’s harder in ways men cannot even fathom. You will get frustrated, you may want to quit, and yes, it is possible that you may even lose your race. But know that hopefully because of your efforts the next time a woman runs, it will be a little easier that go around. When you are woman seeking to break political glass ceilings, the process is as much about you as the next five who follow. (Hillary to Bachmann: “You’re welcome.”) Don’t sit this opportunity out. Join the other incredible women in our nation’s history who have dared to define the role women play in politics on their own terms. Your country needs you.
Back in the day when Michele Bachmann was leading in the Republican presidential primary (i.e., this summer), I was doubled over with grief at the idea that she could be first. Call me crazy, but I hope whoever achieves the honor of becoming the first woman to win the presidential nomination of major political party does not have to be convinced that the Founding Fathers did not in fact outlaw slavery.
Now that Bachmann’s star has fallen, I am concerned that neither political party has a deep enough bench to field a viable female candidate for president in the next three years. Currently, there are only six women serving as governors, 17 women in the United States Senate, and 72 in the House of Representatives. If we control for age, experience, name recognition, likability, alternative ambitions, and public displays of wackiness (yes, this is applies to male candidates too because wackiness knows no bounds), the numbers look even bleaker. We have got to get more women off the sidelines and into the field!
A 2009 study conducted by Stanford University and the University of Chicago found that on average, women in Congress introduce more legislation, attract more co-sponsors, and secure more resources for their districts and states than their male counterparts. In general, women in government are known to get things done and not take no for an answer. This is not to diminish the impact of men, but there are times when the fortitude and deep abiding commitment of women is stronger than that of said counterparts. And at this time in our nation’s history, it is needed.
In the last ten months, we’ve witnessed an unbelievable war on women across the country. From "forcible rape" to Planned Parenthood, from the assault on public employees (the majority of whom are female) to allowing hospitals to deny pregnant women life-saving care, can we please call off the vultures?! Now, I am not expecting every woman who decides to run for office to be progressive and pro-choice (it would be nice, but I’m realistic). However, when a city decides to decriminalize domestic violence over a budget dispute with its county counterparts, I would hope all the women could come together as a collective and say: “Are you serious?!”
We need more women running and serving in public office. Now, I would be remiss not to mention the difficulties involved in running for office. As a veteran campaign staffer, I know campaigns are not for the fainthearted. They are tough—physically, mentally, and spiritually. And for women—Democrat or Republican—it’s harder in ways men cannot even fathom. You will get frustrated, you may want to quit, and yes, it is possible that you may even lose your race. But know that hopefully because of your efforts the next time a woman runs, it will be a little easier that go around. When you are woman seeking to break political glass ceilings, the process is as much about you as the next five who follow. (Hillary to Bachmann: “You’re welcome.”) Don’t sit this opportunity out. Join the other incredible women in our nation’s history who have dared to define the role women play in politics on their own terms. Your country needs you.
D.C. Public Schools: 1 AMR (After Michelle Rhee)
Jeff Ross, MPA
One year ago this month, Michelle Rhee stepped down as chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). Anyone who has lived in the District knows that it is an odd mix of national and local priorities, Redskins fans and Cowboys fans, transplanted individuals and born-and-raised lifers. But no matter how connected or disconnected one is with the goings on of local DC issues and politics, nearly everyone who lived in the District from 2007-2010 had an opinion about “that Korean lady who was running the schools.”
Ms. Rhee, selected as chancellor by Mayor Adrian Fenty in 2007 shortly after the D.C. City Council voted to establish direct mayoral control of the public school system, was young for an urban superintendent and had a non-traditional background for a superintendent of a large urban school district. She taught elementary school in Baltimore for three years before founding the non-profit The New Teacher Project, an organization that has worked with urban school districts to recruit or hire over 43,000 teachers. At the time, DCPS had long been considered one of the worst performing school districts in the nation, a system that spent one of the highest amounts of dollars per student yet got some of the lowest academic outcomes in the country. Leadership had been a constant revolving door, with six different superintendents in the previous ten years.
In the three plus years of Ms. Rhee’s controversial tenure, she brought a sense of urgency coupled with significant change aimed at improving the school system as quickly as possible. Washington Post writer Bill Turque, who covered the D.C. Public School system since relatively early in Ms. Rhee’s tenure, recently wrote a review of Ms. Rhee’s record. For the most part, I think it paints a fair picture of the successes (improvements in student outcomes and test scores, operational improvements in central office functions and food service, increased focus and importance on education as a civic issue) and challenges (opposition from some parents and community members, continued high principal turnover) faced by Ms. Rhee during her tenure, with a few caveats:
1) While the statistics surrounding D.C. Public Schools prior to Ms. Rhee’s tenure mentioned earlier are well-known and oft-cited, I think people often forget just how much agreement there was in the unacceptable state of affairs in DCPS at that time. The landslide 9-2 vote to enact mayoral control coupled with the unanimous vote to approve Ms. Rhee as chancellor are but two markers of the universal call for change at the time.
2) A noticeable omission from the article was the focus Ms. Rhee and DCPS put on ensuring every school had an arts, music, and physical education program. While parents and teachers alike often complain of the edging out of more robust educational opportunities in some schools (particularly those in urban areas) in favor of more practice with tested subjects (reading and math), DCPS under Ms. Rhee invested significant resources to ensure these options were available to all students for the first time.
3) Turque mentions that parents and community members felt that Ms. Rhee moved forward with school improvement efforts – including but not limited to closing underutilized school buildings – despite their stated objections. Indeed, Ms. Rhee faced decreasing approval ratings from D.C. residents during her tenure. However, it is important to note that while residents disapproved of Ms. Rhee personally in increasing numbers, Washington Post polls found that residents were in fact more satisfied with the levels of safety and overall satisfaction with public schools under Ms. Rhee, suggesting that much of the discontent was communication or personality related.
As a former employee of DCPS under Ms. Rhee, I certainly think that there were things that could have been done better. While I’m sympathetic to the position of Ms. Rhee and others that when it comes to student outcomes, change and improvement cannot happen fast enough, I think that it is crucial to present such efforts in as fair and collaborative manner as possible. While some would call that a subtle distinction, such a mindset shift would potentially have large effects on the number of new programs created, the rollout of vital new systems like the IMPACT teacher evaluation system, and communication with elected officials and community members. That’s why I’m confident in the future of DCPS under the leadership of current DCPS chancellor Kaya Henderson, who brings the same unwavering passion and commitment to improved student outcomes with a more inclusive style. Nevertheless, I think it’s important to take stock of where things were just a short time ago, and to have the understanding that such meaningful and positive change wouldn’t have occurred without the efforts of Chancellor Michelle Rhee.
One year ago this month, Michelle Rhee stepped down as chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). Anyone who has lived in the District knows that it is an odd mix of national and local priorities, Redskins fans and Cowboys fans, transplanted individuals and born-and-raised lifers. But no matter how connected or disconnected one is with the goings on of local DC issues and politics, nearly everyone who lived in the District from 2007-2010 had an opinion about “that Korean lady who was running the schools.”
Ms. Rhee, selected as chancellor by Mayor Adrian Fenty in 2007 shortly after the D.C. City Council voted to establish direct mayoral control of the public school system, was young for an urban superintendent and had a non-traditional background for a superintendent of a large urban school district. She taught elementary school in Baltimore for three years before founding the non-profit The New Teacher Project, an organization that has worked with urban school districts to recruit or hire over 43,000 teachers. At the time, DCPS had long been considered one of the worst performing school districts in the nation, a system that spent one of the highest amounts of dollars per student yet got some of the lowest academic outcomes in the country. Leadership had been a constant revolving door, with six different superintendents in the previous ten years.
In the three plus years of Ms. Rhee’s controversial tenure, she brought a sense of urgency coupled with significant change aimed at improving the school system as quickly as possible. Washington Post writer Bill Turque, who covered the D.C. Public School system since relatively early in Ms. Rhee’s tenure, recently wrote a review of Ms. Rhee’s record. For the most part, I think it paints a fair picture of the successes (improvements in student outcomes and test scores, operational improvements in central office functions and food service, increased focus and importance on education as a civic issue) and challenges (opposition from some parents and community members, continued high principal turnover) faced by Ms. Rhee during her tenure, with a few caveats:
1) While the statistics surrounding D.C. Public Schools prior to Ms. Rhee’s tenure mentioned earlier are well-known and oft-cited, I think people often forget just how much agreement there was in the unacceptable state of affairs in DCPS at that time. The landslide 9-2 vote to enact mayoral control coupled with the unanimous vote to approve Ms. Rhee as chancellor are but two markers of the universal call for change at the time.
2) A noticeable omission from the article was the focus Ms. Rhee and DCPS put on ensuring every school had an arts, music, and physical education program. While parents and teachers alike often complain of the edging out of more robust educational opportunities in some schools (particularly those in urban areas) in favor of more practice with tested subjects (reading and math), DCPS under Ms. Rhee invested significant resources to ensure these options were available to all students for the first time.
3) Turque mentions that parents and community members felt that Ms. Rhee moved forward with school improvement efforts – including but not limited to closing underutilized school buildings – despite their stated objections. Indeed, Ms. Rhee faced decreasing approval ratings from D.C. residents during her tenure. However, it is important to note that while residents disapproved of Ms. Rhee personally in increasing numbers, Washington Post polls found that residents were in fact more satisfied with the levels of safety and overall satisfaction with public schools under Ms. Rhee, suggesting that much of the discontent was communication or personality related.
As a former employee of DCPS under Ms. Rhee, I certainly think that there were things that could have been done better. While I’m sympathetic to the position of Ms. Rhee and others that when it comes to student outcomes, change and improvement cannot happen fast enough, I think that it is crucial to present such efforts in as fair and collaborative manner as possible. While some would call that a subtle distinction, such a mindset shift would potentially have large effects on the number of new programs created, the rollout of vital new systems like the IMPACT teacher evaluation system, and communication with elected officials and community members. That’s why I’m confident in the future of DCPS under the leadership of current DCPS chancellor Kaya Henderson, who brings the same unwavering passion and commitment to improved student outcomes with a more inclusive style. Nevertheless, I think it’s important to take stock of where things were just a short time ago, and to have the understanding that such meaningful and positive change wouldn’t have occurred without the efforts of Chancellor Michelle Rhee.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Making Butter Without the Cream of the Crop: Overcoming the bimodality of urban school choice
Drew Haugen, MPA
In the education reform world, charter schools have been garnering a lot of attention. Schools like KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program), started in Houston in 1994, have achieved tremendous gains with students from underserved communities and have taken their model nation-wide.
Charters like KIPP also usually endure a barrage of criticism and scrutiny. Common critiques range from charges that they take the “cream of the crop” of available students to accusations of being quick to expel students with behavior, language, or disability issues. Others argue that their model is financially unsustainable.
My critique of charter schools like KIPP is through a different lens—what I call the Commitment Dilemma.
Commitment to a school like KIPP, with its longer days, Saturday school, longer academic year, hours of homework every night, and a rigorous behavioral culture, is a hefty commitment for a child of any ability level to make. Colorado State Senator Mike Johnston, my boss this summer and former principal of a high school that dealt with at-risk students, explained the Commitment Dilemma to me using the following analogy.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that all students have 100 “Free-time Commitment Points.” These 100 points represent the available free-time a student has for the activities to which they can devote their energies outside of mandatory requirements (sleeping, the seven-hour school day required by law, etc.).
Students can allocate their Free-time Commitment Points however they like, divvying them up between activities like studying, family time, organized sports, time with friends, and so forth.
For the purposes of this example let’s say that to graduate in the middle of her class at a KIPP school the average low-income urban student, Shirley, must allocate 80 of her total 100 Free-time Commitment Points to KIPP and the additional time, activities, and homework KIPP requires.
In contrast, Shirley’s local school, which is not as academically rigorous and does not yield the same high probability of college acceptance for Shirley as KIPP, is nonetheless a safe and moderately performing school that many of Shirley’s friends attend. To graduate from this school in the middle of her class requires 40 of Shirley’s Commitment Points.
Now let’s pause for a moment and inject some self-reflection into this analogy. Say I give you two options for the undergraduate institution you will attend: Vanderbilt or CalTech. You must choose one of these two options.
If my intuition is correct, a number of my capable and intelligent readers will choose Vanderbilt and a number will choose CalTech.
Applying our Free-time Commitment Points analogy, my guess is that readers who want to devote a large portion of their Points to academic extracurriculars like course reading, studying, and so forth in exchange for a more rigorous academic experience will choose CalTech. I’d also guess that readers who want to spend more of their Free-time Commitment Points on activities not directly related to school, such as social events, sports, and so on, will choose Vanderbilt.
This is a rough analogy, but the gist is this: students that are equally capable and intelligent (my readership) will choose different schools for different reasons and some of these reasons have little or nothing to do with academic pursuits.
Luckily for us, CalTech and Vanderbilt are both academically rigorous institutions that yield intellectual development and professional readiness for their students and a baseline of required academic proficiency in order to receive a diploma.
The same cannot be said of Shirley’s choices in our example. Even if Shirley is an above-average student with 60 Points to commit to academic enrichment, she falls short of the extraordinary commitment required to succeed at KIPP and will most likely end up in her neighborhood school. Shirley becomes a cautionary tale. This is the Commitment Dilemma.
It is true that KIPP achieves extraordinary results. But KIPP also enjoys extraordinarily committed administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The portion of our society willing to devote this much free-time and energy to schooling is a small minority.
If we can assume normality of student free-time commitment levels, then ideally there should exist a normal distribution of school options for students like Shirley to pick from. It would be a relatively easy endeavor for Shirley to find a school to match, or come close to, her 60-Commitment Point level.
All schools in this distribution would require a baseline academic proficiency of their students equivalent to a high school diploma or GED. As schools increase their academic enrichment activities (longer days, school years, more homework, AP and IB courses, advanced diplomas, etc.), so would their Free-time Commitment requirement.
Near the top of this distribution, we would find schools that prepare students for entry into elite higher education institutions. Near the bottom of this distribution, we would find schools that prepare students for success in community and junior colleges and entry-level four-year institutions.
Unfortunately, the reality of what most poor urban students encounter is a bimodal distribution of school options. Their first option is a low-commitment school, usually a failing public school that graduates them unprepared for success at a community college. The other option is a high commitment school, usually a rigorous charter school that prepares them for success at a mid-range four-year college.
The education reform movement must devote more energy to “building out the middle” of this currently bimodal distribution of school options. The development of rigorous and challenging schools for administrators, teachers, parents, and students of all commitment levels must be a much stronger priority.
A fitting model is the California higher education system, which was reorganized under the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education.
The Master Plan organized California’s higher education system into tiers. Tier 1 is comprised of the state’s marquee institutions—the University of California (UC) system. The California State University system makes up Tier 2, and the state’s community and junior college system rounds out Tier 3.
In California, the top 12.5% of graduating seniors are guaranteed a spot at one of the UC schools. The top 33% is guaranteed a spot at a Cal State, and California Community Colleges are to admit “any student capable of benefiting from instruction.”
This diversification of higher educational opportunities in California has yielded tremendous results: enrollment has increased ten-fold since 1960, while the California population has only approximately tripled. What’s more, there are avenues for advancement and enrichment between tiers: Santa Monica Community College in Los Angeles is the #1 institution for transfers to UCLA and UC-Berkeley.
By providing a similarly wide array of school options for public K-12, all of which afford students rigorous opportunities for academic proficiency and enrichment, our school system will yield higher retention levels, better academic fits for students, and more robust achievement on a large scale. Our education system must adapt itself to make butter with all types of milk—not just the cream.
In the education reform world, charter schools have been garnering a lot of attention. Schools like KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program), started in Houston in 1994, have achieved tremendous gains with students from underserved communities and have taken their model nation-wide.
Charters like KIPP also usually endure a barrage of criticism and scrutiny. Common critiques range from charges that they take the “cream of the crop” of available students to accusations of being quick to expel students with behavior, language, or disability issues. Others argue that their model is financially unsustainable.
My critique of charter schools like KIPP is through a different lens—what I call the Commitment Dilemma.
Commitment to a school like KIPP, with its longer days, Saturday school, longer academic year, hours of homework every night, and a rigorous behavioral culture, is a hefty commitment for a child of any ability level to make. Colorado State Senator Mike Johnston, my boss this summer and former principal of a high school that dealt with at-risk students, explained the Commitment Dilemma to me using the following analogy.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that all students have 100 “Free-time Commitment Points.” These 100 points represent the available free-time a student has for the activities to which they can devote their energies outside of mandatory requirements (sleeping, the seven-hour school day required by law, etc.).
Students can allocate their Free-time Commitment Points however they like, divvying them up between activities like studying, family time, organized sports, time with friends, and so forth.
For the purposes of this example let’s say that to graduate in the middle of her class at a KIPP school the average low-income urban student, Shirley, must allocate 80 of her total 100 Free-time Commitment Points to KIPP and the additional time, activities, and homework KIPP requires.
In contrast, Shirley’s local school, which is not as academically rigorous and does not yield the same high probability of college acceptance for Shirley as KIPP, is nonetheless a safe and moderately performing school that many of Shirley’s friends attend. To graduate from this school in the middle of her class requires 40 of Shirley’s Commitment Points.
Now let’s pause for a moment and inject some self-reflection into this analogy. Say I give you two options for the undergraduate institution you will attend: Vanderbilt or CalTech. You must choose one of these two options.
If my intuition is correct, a number of my capable and intelligent readers will choose Vanderbilt and a number will choose CalTech.
Applying our Free-time Commitment Points analogy, my guess is that readers who want to devote a large portion of their Points to academic extracurriculars like course reading, studying, and so forth in exchange for a more rigorous academic experience will choose CalTech. I’d also guess that readers who want to spend more of their Free-time Commitment Points on activities not directly related to school, such as social events, sports, and so on, will choose Vanderbilt.
This is a rough analogy, but the gist is this: students that are equally capable and intelligent (my readership) will choose different schools for different reasons and some of these reasons have little or nothing to do with academic pursuits.
Luckily for us, CalTech and Vanderbilt are both academically rigorous institutions that yield intellectual development and professional readiness for their students and a baseline of required academic proficiency in order to receive a diploma.
The same cannot be said of Shirley’s choices in our example. Even if Shirley is an above-average student with 60 Points to commit to academic enrichment, she falls short of the extraordinary commitment required to succeed at KIPP and will most likely end up in her neighborhood school. Shirley becomes a cautionary tale. This is the Commitment Dilemma.
It is true that KIPP achieves extraordinary results. But KIPP also enjoys extraordinarily committed administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The portion of our society willing to devote this much free-time and energy to schooling is a small minority.
If we can assume normality of student free-time commitment levels, then ideally there should exist a normal distribution of school options for students like Shirley to pick from. It would be a relatively easy endeavor for Shirley to find a school to match, or come close to, her 60-Commitment Point level.
All schools in this distribution would require a baseline academic proficiency of their students equivalent to a high school diploma or GED. As schools increase their academic enrichment activities (longer days, school years, more homework, AP and IB courses, advanced diplomas, etc.), so would their Free-time Commitment requirement.
Near the top of this distribution, we would find schools that prepare students for entry into elite higher education institutions. Near the bottom of this distribution, we would find schools that prepare students for success in community and junior colleges and entry-level four-year institutions.
Unfortunately, the reality of what most poor urban students encounter is a bimodal distribution of school options. Their first option is a low-commitment school, usually a failing public school that graduates them unprepared for success at a community college. The other option is a high commitment school, usually a rigorous charter school that prepares them for success at a mid-range four-year college.
The education reform movement must devote more energy to “building out the middle” of this currently bimodal distribution of school options. The development of rigorous and challenging schools for administrators, teachers, parents, and students of all commitment levels must be a much stronger priority.
A fitting model is the California higher education system, which was reorganized under the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education.
The Master Plan organized California’s higher education system into tiers. Tier 1 is comprised of the state’s marquee institutions—the University of California (UC) system. The California State University system makes up Tier 2, and the state’s community and junior college system rounds out Tier 3.
In California, the top 12.5% of graduating seniors are guaranteed a spot at one of the UC schools. The top 33% is guaranteed a spot at a Cal State, and California Community Colleges are to admit “any student capable of benefiting from instruction.”
This diversification of higher educational opportunities in California has yielded tremendous results: enrollment has increased ten-fold since 1960, while the California population has only approximately tripled. What’s more, there are avenues for advancement and enrichment between tiers: Santa Monica Community College in Los Angeles is the #1 institution for transfers to UCLA and UC-Berkeley.
By providing a similarly wide array of school options for public K-12, all of which afford students rigorous opportunities for academic proficiency and enrichment, our school system will yield higher retention levels, better academic fits for students, and more robust achievement on a large scale. Our education system must adapt itself to make butter with all types of milk—not just the cream.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
When it Comes to Colleges, Spare Us the Rankings (But Keep the Numbers)
Dan Fichtler, MPA
Arguably the most relied-upon college admissions advice for high school seniors comes not from a guidance counselor or an admissions officer or even a parent, but rather from the pages of a well-known magazine. The editors of U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) have just released the 2012 version of their annual college rankings (Editor’s note: Princeton #1!), and like in recent years, many soon-to-be applicants took another step towards higher education by consulting this publication to navigate the difficult decisions that lie ahead.
As has also become something of an autumn tradition, this year’s USNWR rankings were taken out to the woodshed by a wide variety of educators and pundits. The rankings have existed for nearly three decades now, and the charges laid against them are fairly predictable. Critics often cite the use of input-driven data (SAT scores and class rank of incoming students) rather than output-driven data (post-graduation salaries and percentages of alumni pursing or holding advanced degrees). Another common complaint is the ability of colleges and universities to manipulate data by changing their practices; that is, allocating resources towards those characteristics that the USNWR editors deem important, at the expense of the many other crucial elements of a college education. Anyone who has ever wondered why so many college courses are capped at the unusual level of 19 students, for example, can likely find an answer within the USNWR rankings formula.
But perhaps most objectionable is the idea that colleges and universities can be ranked in such a neat and simplistic way – or that they can be ranked at all. This criticism has more merit than any other that is regularly piled onto the USNWR editors (more on this point in a bit).
So how does USNWR determine these rankings? Well, it assigns each college and university an overall score, which is calculated via a relatively simple process. Data on a series of school characteristics are compiled, computed into common units, and summed, with different characteristics holding different weights. The schools are then ranked based upon their overall scores.
USNWR makes no attempt to hide its methodology[1], and yet anecdotal evidence suggests that very few high school seniors or their parents (or really anyone else for that matter) understand how the scores are calculated. And while an informal survey certainly cannot substitute for more rigorous hypothesis testing techniques, I sought to observe this anecdotal evidence. I asked about a dozen well-educated individuals to estimate the weight given to a school’s acceptance rate in the USNWR rankings. Answers ranged from a low of 8% to a high of 100%, with most falling in the range of 15-20%. The correct answer: 1.5%.
The table below provides the factors (and weights) used to determine the USNWR overall scores.
Perhaps what appears to be systematic overestimation of the importance of acceptance rates comes from perceptions encouraged by the USNWR critics. Stories in the media that demonize elite universities for lowering their acceptance rates to game the rankings may lead readers to believe that this single variable plays an important role in the rankings formula. Of course, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about ever lower acceptance rates. There are also, however, plenty of reasons why schools might seek to lower their acceptance rates, USNWR aside. To directly or indirectly attribute causal effects to USNWR for this trend without considering these other factors represents nothing more than lazy analysis.
As the critics know, it is not difficult to find flaws in this system, or at least to question the validity of the specific weights assigned to various factors. What the critics often fail to acknowledge, however, is the valuable service that the USNWR editors provide. That service is the pure provision of information in a market that has otherwise been difficult for consumers to navigate.
Choosing which colleges to apply to, and eventually which to attend, are important life decisions. Future careers, lifelong friends, and even spouses are discovered during these years for many individuals, which therefore raises the stakes on the importance of making good decisions. If we believe that high school students (and parents and counselors) are best served by having access to information on many characteristics of colleges and universities, then we must applaud those who make this information widely available and easy to process. That group includes not only USNWR, by the way, but also the editors of rival rankings systems, who created their rankings in part to rectify what they felt were flaws in the USNWR system.
The creation of new, widely circulated systems suggests that college rankings will not be disappearing anytime soon. Forbes and Washington Monthly have entered the rankings game in recent years, and the college rankings edition of USNWR continues to sell remarkably well. And despite the valid criticisms of the specific USNWR methodology, the larger question remains: can simple rankings of colleges and universities across many variables help consumers?
For example, is #12 Northwestern really an incrementally better university than #13 Johns Hopkins? And is #2 Amherst really an incrementally better liberal arts college than #3 Swarthmore? They surely are not – at least not categorically. Ranking schools on this type of continuous scale therefore makes very little sense. For some students, Northwestern is a better option than Johns Hopkins; for others, the opposite is true. The same goes for Amherst and Swarthmore.
So how do students make these decisions? They could use the wide array of data that USNWR puts forth, comparing schools on the characteristics that are most important to them, whether those are class size or graduation rate or academic reputation. Some students certainly do this. Many others, however, fall victim to the “rankings-as-gospel” syndrome. Swarthmore may be a better fit for their personality and interests, but they cannot get beyond the fact that Amherst is ranked higher, and a mismatch occurs. The solution to this dilemma is quite simple: remove the rankings, keep the numbers.
And so the critics are correct – USNWR seems to be at least partially to blame for mismatching and suboptimal decision-making. But USNWR is also at least partially responsible for the good decisions of those students who are able to look past simple rankings and delve deeper into the data. Since 1983, USNWR has provided crucial information to students in an easy-to-digest manner. For that, they deserve our (partial) thanks.
Arguably the most relied-upon college admissions advice for high school seniors comes not from a guidance counselor or an admissions officer or even a parent, but rather from the pages of a well-known magazine. The editors of U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) have just released the 2012 version of their annual college rankings (Editor’s note: Princeton #1!), and like in recent years, many soon-to-be applicants took another step towards higher education by consulting this publication to navigate the difficult decisions that lie ahead.
As has also become something of an autumn tradition, this year’s USNWR rankings were taken out to the woodshed by a wide variety of educators and pundits. The rankings have existed for nearly three decades now, and the charges laid against them are fairly predictable. Critics often cite the use of input-driven data (SAT scores and class rank of incoming students) rather than output-driven data (post-graduation salaries and percentages of alumni pursing or holding advanced degrees). Another common complaint is the ability of colleges and universities to manipulate data by changing their practices; that is, allocating resources towards those characteristics that the USNWR editors deem important, at the expense of the many other crucial elements of a college education. Anyone who has ever wondered why so many college courses are capped at the unusual level of 19 students, for example, can likely find an answer within the USNWR rankings formula.
But perhaps most objectionable is the idea that colleges and universities can be ranked in such a neat and simplistic way – or that they can be ranked at all. This criticism has more merit than any other that is regularly piled onto the USNWR editors (more on this point in a bit).
So how does USNWR determine these rankings? Well, it assigns each college and university an overall score, which is calculated via a relatively simple process. Data on a series of school characteristics are compiled, computed into common units, and summed, with different characteristics holding different weights. The schools are then ranked based upon their overall scores.
USNWR makes no attempt to hide its methodology[1], and yet anecdotal evidence suggests that very few high school seniors or their parents (or really anyone else for that matter) understand how the scores are calculated. And while an informal survey certainly cannot substitute for more rigorous hypothesis testing techniques, I sought to observe this anecdotal evidence. I asked about a dozen well-educated individuals to estimate the weight given to a school’s acceptance rate in the USNWR rankings. Answers ranged from a low of 8% to a high of 100%, with most falling in the range of 15-20%. The correct answer: 1.5%.
The table below provides the factors (and weights) used to determine the USNWR overall scores.
Methodology Used by U.S. News & World Report in its 2012 College Rankings[2] | |
Component | Weighting (out of 100%) |
Undergraduate Academic Reputation | 22.5% |
Academic peer assessment | 15% |
High school counselor assessment | 7.5% |
Retention | 20% |
Six-year graduation rate | 16% |
Freshman retention rate | 4% |
Faculty Resources | 20% |
Average faculty salary (including benefits) | 7% |
Proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students | 6% |
Proportion of faculty with highest degree in their field | 3% |
Proportion of classes with 50 or more students | 2% |
Student-faculty ratio | 1% |
Proportion of faculty who are full-time employees | 1% |
Student Selectivity | 15% |
SAT and ACT scores of entering students | 7.5% |
Proportion of freshman graduating in top 10% of HS | 6% |
Acceptance rate | 1.5% |
Financial Resources | 10% |
Graduate Rate Performance | 7.5% |
Alumni Giving Rate | 5% |
As the critics know, it is not difficult to find flaws in this system, or at least to question the validity of the specific weights assigned to various factors. What the critics often fail to acknowledge, however, is the valuable service that the USNWR editors provide. That service is the pure provision of information in a market that has otherwise been difficult for consumers to navigate.
Choosing which colleges to apply to, and eventually which to attend, are important life decisions. Future careers, lifelong friends, and even spouses are discovered during these years for many individuals, which therefore raises the stakes on the importance of making good decisions. If we believe that high school students (and parents and counselors) are best served by having access to information on many characteristics of colleges and universities, then we must applaud those who make this information widely available and easy to process. That group includes not only USNWR, by the way, but also the editors of rival rankings systems, who created their rankings in part to rectify what they felt were flaws in the USNWR system.
The creation of new, widely circulated systems suggests that college rankings will not be disappearing anytime soon. Forbes and Washington Monthly have entered the rankings game in recent years, and the college rankings edition of USNWR continues to sell remarkably well. And despite the valid criticisms of the specific USNWR methodology, the larger question remains: can simple rankings of colleges and universities across many variables help consumers?
For example, is #12 Northwestern really an incrementally better university than #13 Johns Hopkins? And is #2 Amherst really an incrementally better liberal arts college than #3 Swarthmore? They surely are not – at least not categorically. Ranking schools on this type of continuous scale therefore makes very little sense. For some students, Northwestern is a better option than Johns Hopkins; for others, the opposite is true. The same goes for Amherst and Swarthmore.
So how do students make these decisions? They could use the wide array of data that USNWR puts forth, comparing schools on the characteristics that are most important to them, whether those are class size or graduation rate or academic reputation. Some students certainly do this. Many others, however, fall victim to the “rankings-as-gospel” syndrome. Swarthmore may be a better fit for their personality and interests, but they cannot get beyond the fact that Amherst is ranked higher, and a mismatch occurs. The solution to this dilemma is quite simple: remove the rankings, keep the numbers.
And so the critics are correct – USNWR seems to be at least partially to blame for mismatching and suboptimal decision-making. But USNWR is also at least partially responsible for the good decisions of those students who are able to look past simple rankings and delve deeper into the data. Since 1983, USNWR has provided crucial information to students in an easy-to-digest manner. For that, they deserve our (partial) thanks.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Latin Americans: A disproportionate share of the uninsured
Veronica Guerra, MPA
Healthcare in America is designed as a multi-payer or privatized system, meaning everyone is responsible for securing his or her own health services. Excluding the young and old who are covered under federal or state social welfare programs, the majority of Americans get healthcare either through private insurance or their employer. Yet, nearly 55.6 million Americans lack access to basic health services, and even those who do find costs prohibitive: nearly half of bankruptcies in America are related to medical care payments. These statistics become paradoxical when one considers ballooning national expenditures in the health services industry.
In 2005 almost 34% of Latinos were uninsured, constituting a disproportionate share of the nation’s uninsured population. (This high rate has also led to further exacerbation of existing health inequities and to more pronounced health disparities.) The likelihood of being uninsured is far higher among non-citizen Latinos who primarily speak Spanish. There are various factors that contribute to the increasingly uninsured status of the Latino population, including employment, employee benefits, household income, language, and citizenship status.
Immigration from Latin America to the United States has steadily risen over time. Latino citizens and non-citizens are less likely to have both public and private insurance coverage. Non-citizens do not qualify for various public programs including Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and legal immigrants often do not apply for public programs because of fear of jeopardizing their residency status or because they are ineligible during the first five years of gaining residency. When employed, they are less likely to receive employee health benefits, and low-wages prevent the purchase of private insurance. In general, minorities and immigrant families have lower average incomes than white citizen families. These income differences pose a challenge in obtaining health benefits because low incomes lead many families to make difficult decisions between health care coverage and other basic necessities due to the increasing costs of health coverage.
Language also has an implicit effect on uninsured status. Those who have limited English proficiency may have limited employment opportunities and may work in low-wage sectors that do not offer employee health benefits. Furthermore, language barriers both pose a challenge in completing insurance applications and may compromise the quality of health care when access is obtained.
One important recommendation that could decrease the number of uninsured is to restore public insurance eligibility for legal immigrants, either through federal legislation or at the state level through programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP. Resources should be concentrated in the Latino community to help reduce the number of uninsured and decrease medical expenses incurred through emergency care visits. Existing resources that provide care for the uninsured such as safety-net clinics should be improved and provided increased funding to meet the high demand for their services. Additionally, policies that improve the quality of jobs held by Latinos or that incentivize businesses to offer insurance to low-income workers could lead to increased offers in employer-based health insurance. Processes to apply for insurance—whether public or private—should be streamlined and accessible to those who require language assistance. It is important that government efforts be focused on decreasing health disparities, improving preventive efforts, and increasing access to health care coverage for adults and children. This is not simply beneficial to the Latino community, but to Americans nationwide.
Healthcare in America is designed as a multi-payer or privatized system, meaning everyone is responsible for securing his or her own health services. Excluding the young and old who are covered under federal or state social welfare programs, the majority of Americans get healthcare either through private insurance or their employer. Yet, nearly 55.6 million Americans lack access to basic health services, and even those who do find costs prohibitive: nearly half of bankruptcies in America are related to medical care payments. These statistics become paradoxical when one considers ballooning national expenditures in the health services industry.
In 2005 almost 34% of Latinos were uninsured, constituting a disproportionate share of the nation’s uninsured population. (This high rate has also led to further exacerbation of existing health inequities and to more pronounced health disparities.) The likelihood of being uninsured is far higher among non-citizen Latinos who primarily speak Spanish. There are various factors that contribute to the increasingly uninsured status of the Latino population, including employment, employee benefits, household income, language, and citizenship status.
Immigration from Latin America to the United States has steadily risen over time. Latino citizens and non-citizens are less likely to have both public and private insurance coverage. Non-citizens do not qualify for various public programs including Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and legal immigrants often do not apply for public programs because of fear of jeopardizing their residency status or because they are ineligible during the first five years of gaining residency. When employed, they are less likely to receive employee health benefits, and low-wages prevent the purchase of private insurance. In general, minorities and immigrant families have lower average incomes than white citizen families. These income differences pose a challenge in obtaining health benefits because low incomes lead many families to make difficult decisions between health care coverage and other basic necessities due to the increasing costs of health coverage.
Language also has an implicit effect on uninsured status. Those who have limited English proficiency may have limited employment opportunities and may work in low-wage sectors that do not offer employee health benefits. Furthermore, language barriers both pose a challenge in completing insurance applications and may compromise the quality of health care when access is obtained.
One important recommendation that could decrease the number of uninsured is to restore public insurance eligibility for legal immigrants, either through federal legislation or at the state level through programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP. Resources should be concentrated in the Latino community to help reduce the number of uninsured and decrease medical expenses incurred through emergency care visits. Existing resources that provide care for the uninsured such as safety-net clinics should be improved and provided increased funding to meet the high demand for their services. Additionally, policies that improve the quality of jobs held by Latinos or that incentivize businesses to offer insurance to low-income workers could lead to increased offers in employer-based health insurance. Processes to apply for insurance—whether public or private—should be streamlined and accessible to those who require language assistance. It is important that government efforts be focused on decreasing health disparities, improving preventive efforts, and increasing access to health care coverage for adults and children. This is not simply beneficial to the Latino community, but to Americans nationwide.
Guess Who’s Coming to Breakfast? And Lunch, and Dinner?
Jenn Onofrio, MPA
Earlier this month the Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines for food manufacturers on recommended decreases in the level and frequency of sugar-sweetened cereals marketing to children. The guidelines, though voluntary, remind us again of the pervasive place of the food industry at the kitchen table.
Ask a parent who has tried to get her child to eat the boring oatmeal instead of the Cocoa Puffs before dashing out the door—the task is daunting to say the least. Food research tells us, though, that this is not entirely a matter of children’s taste buds being so normalized to sugar that they just hate oatmeal—it’s also the product of millions of dollars of targeted advertising that reminds children over and over again through television and internet commercials that Tony the Tiger is “grrrrrrreat!”
According to the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, “food marketing to youth has been shown to increase preference for advertised foods; consumption of advertised foods; overall calorie consumption; requests to parents to purchase advertised foods (known as “pester power”); and snacking.”
The food industry has literally wedged itself between parents and children.
I studied food policy this fall as part of a working group preparing recommendations for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Childhood Obesity Group. We researched and visited programs all over the country that were tackling the issue of childhood obesity. I was fortunate to be able to meet with leadership in San Francisco about the hot topic of the time, the so-called “Happy Meal ban.” What was amazing was that it wasn’t a ban at all, but rather a requirement that fast food companies could not hand out a free toy with a meal that contained over 600 calories (with more than 35% derived from fat), and more than 640mg of sodium. It was actually an incentive for companies to increase their nutritional standards. Make it healthier, and add a serving of fruit and veggies. So long as they complied, they could reintroduce the toy.
But that wasn’t the argument heard ’round the world. Frustrated parents accused the government of trying to take the happy out of the meal. Parent after parent protested, “But my kid wants the Happy Meal.”
Without greater regulation of marketing standards, we’re getting our battles confused. Kids (with the help of the food industry) rebel against adults; adults rebel against government initiatives because of what their kids want. (Conveniently, it’s also what the food industry wants.) It creates a lot a noise and not a lot of change in the fact that the childhood obesity rate has tripled since 1980. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 17% of American children are obese.
Regulation won’t cure everything. Our research found that the most effective programs implemented a mix of bans, incentives, and education. To complement this troika, it may be time to think about setting one less place at the kitchen table. Tony the Tiger, you’re out.
Editor’s Note: You can read more about this subject in “Tipping the Scales: Strategies for Changing How America’s Children Eat,” a WWS graduate policy workshop final report presented to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available here.
Earlier this month the Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines for food manufacturers on recommended decreases in the level and frequency of sugar-sweetened cereals marketing to children. The guidelines, though voluntary, remind us again of the pervasive place of the food industry at the kitchen table.
Ask a parent who has tried to get her child to eat the boring oatmeal instead of the Cocoa Puffs before dashing out the door—the task is daunting to say the least. Food research tells us, though, that this is not entirely a matter of children’s taste buds being so normalized to sugar that they just hate oatmeal—it’s also the product of millions of dollars of targeted advertising that reminds children over and over again through television and internet commercials that Tony the Tiger is “grrrrrrreat!”
According to the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, “food marketing to youth has been shown to increase preference for advertised foods; consumption of advertised foods; overall calorie consumption; requests to parents to purchase advertised foods (known as “pester power”); and snacking.”
The food industry has literally wedged itself between parents and children.
I studied food policy this fall as part of a working group preparing recommendations for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Childhood Obesity Group. We researched and visited programs all over the country that were tackling the issue of childhood obesity. I was fortunate to be able to meet with leadership in San Francisco about the hot topic of the time, the so-called “Happy Meal ban.” What was amazing was that it wasn’t a ban at all, but rather a requirement that fast food companies could not hand out a free toy with a meal that contained over 600 calories (with more than 35% derived from fat), and more than 640mg of sodium. It was actually an incentive for companies to increase their nutritional standards. Make it healthier, and add a serving of fruit and veggies. So long as they complied, they could reintroduce the toy.
But that wasn’t the argument heard ’round the world. Frustrated parents accused the government of trying to take the happy out of the meal. Parent after parent protested, “But my kid wants the Happy Meal.”
Without greater regulation of marketing standards, we’re getting our battles confused. Kids (with the help of the food industry) rebel against adults; adults rebel against government initiatives because of what their kids want. (Conveniently, it’s also what the food industry wants.) It creates a lot a noise and not a lot of change in the fact that the childhood obesity rate has tripled since 1980. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 17% of American children are obese.
Regulation won’t cure everything. Our research found that the most effective programs implemented a mix of bans, incentives, and education. To complement this troika, it may be time to think about setting one less place at the kitchen table. Tony the Tiger, you’re out.
Editor’s Note: You can read more about this subject in “Tipping the Scales: Strategies for Changing How America’s Children Eat,” a WWS graduate policy workshop final report presented to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available here.
Friday, May 6, 2011
A return to normalcy: Reflecting on 9/11 in a post-Osama world
Jacob Hartog, MPA
Here’s how I know I’m the oldest MPA1: When 9/11 happened, I was already teaching. In fact, I was administering a beginning-of-the-year standardized test to my 6th grade homeroom when the aide who was handing out the bubble sheets to all the classrooms told me someone had crashed a plane into the World Trade Center, and that there were reports of a second plane as well. The kids overheard the aide’s words.
“Who crashed a plane, Mr. Hertawg?”
“Let’s have a moment of silence,” I said, pretty sure that was what I was supposed to do in these situations.
There were some uncomfortable giggles and a few restless seconds of silence, and then I kept handing out the bubble sheets.
From there, the day got more surreal. Parents began arriving around 10AM to pick up their kids, and the school—a huge and disorganized block of cement in the South Bronx, with 1,500 kids—became still more disorganized. Pretty soon, a long line of anxious parents snaked down the second-floor hallway, waiting to be told where their child was. When that situation began degenerating further, the main office began calling out name after name over the PA system, and the hallways began filling still more.
Finally, the teachers were told one by one to bring their classes down to the auditorium, where they marched past parents standing along the walls, who were supposed to point out their children like suspects in a lineup. When the last kids were dismissed at 3:20PM, rushing unafraid into a bright September day that had suddenly turned ominous for adults, I made my way home, walking from the Bronx to my apartment in Washington Heights. The subways and buses weren’t running, and the streets gradually filled with pedestrians walking in the middle of the road. As we crossed the bridge over the Harlem River into Manhattan, several people pointed at the sky, insisting they could see smoke in the distance of Downtown.
I was always surprised by the public reaction to 9/11, which seemed to be more bellicose the further one traveled from the attacks. Yes, in New York as anywhere else in the country there was anger as well as grief. But for those of us in New York, 9/11 represented a frightening answer to a question that anyone who lives in the City must inevitably pose: whether in living amid that buzzing and bustling confusion one sacrificed a crucial measure of control over life; whether the thin veneer of civility by which packed subway cars, crowded classrooms, and darkened streets become tolerable would one day vanish, revealing savagery and violence. My departure from normalcy was of course but the merest side-trip, compared to those of thousands of others, who returned that night to empty and grieving homes.
In the days after 9/11, perhaps inevitably, our leaders embraced the rhetoric of violence and revenge. But what was needed then was not cowboy swagger but civility, kindness, decorum: not just the kindness of the shopkeepers who had lined Broadway to pass out bottles of water to streets of weary and frightened commuters, nor just rightfully honoring the heroism of fallen rescue workers, nor just the admirable patriotism of thousands who volunteered for the armed forces in the following months; but also a belief in the power of laws, process, normalcy: that criminals can be brought to justice through the courts, that everyone can go back to school and work, and that the trains can run on time.
This is perhaps why the news of Osama bin Laden’s death fills me with ambivalence. It comes after a signal failure by President Obama—a man who believes as much as any in the power of laws and the limitations of violence—to close Guantanamo, to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial in a civilian court, and to fully to end unlawful interrogation practices and infringements on civil liberties. Perhaps none of these goals would have much impressed Osama bin Laden, and that is just why we should have embraced them. Instead, we are happy to crow over an enemy’s bloody death, a reaction bin Laden would have very much understood.
Any sane answer to Osama’s legacy of bloodshed, now as on September 11th, 2001, must start with a commitment to the power of process and normalcy. This commitment to the boring things in life is, perhaps, why we’re in a policy program: a belief that the war, the election, the revolution is never as important as the society in which we wake up on the morning after. A cost of such realism is, perhaps, a limitation to our political passions and a regulation of our hatreds and adorations. Ironically, the same weekend that Osama bin Laden was successfully assassinated, an unsuccessful NATO attempt on the life of Moammar Gadhafi instead killed the Libyan leader’s son as well as his three young grandchildren. Whether we are speaking of Obama, bin Laden or Bush, it is not leaders that ruin or redeem the world but the patterns of action they leave behind.
Here’s how I know I’m the oldest MPA1: When 9/11 happened, I was already teaching. In fact, I was administering a beginning-of-the-year standardized test to my 6th grade homeroom when the aide who was handing out the bubble sheets to all the classrooms told me someone had crashed a plane into the World Trade Center, and that there were reports of a second plane as well. The kids overheard the aide’s words.
“Who crashed a plane, Mr. Hertawg?”
“Let’s have a moment of silence,” I said, pretty sure that was what I was supposed to do in these situations.
There were some uncomfortable giggles and a few restless seconds of silence, and then I kept handing out the bubble sheets.
From there, the day got more surreal. Parents began arriving around 10AM to pick up their kids, and the school—a huge and disorganized block of cement in the South Bronx, with 1,500 kids—became still more disorganized. Pretty soon, a long line of anxious parents snaked down the second-floor hallway, waiting to be told where their child was. When that situation began degenerating further, the main office began calling out name after name over the PA system, and the hallways began filling still more.
Finally, the teachers were told one by one to bring their classes down to the auditorium, where they marched past parents standing along the walls, who were supposed to point out their children like suspects in a lineup. When the last kids were dismissed at 3:20PM, rushing unafraid into a bright September day that had suddenly turned ominous for adults, I made my way home, walking from the Bronx to my apartment in Washington Heights. The subways and buses weren’t running, and the streets gradually filled with pedestrians walking in the middle of the road. As we crossed the bridge over the Harlem River into Manhattan, several people pointed at the sky, insisting they could see smoke in the distance of Downtown.
I was always surprised by the public reaction to 9/11, which seemed to be more bellicose the further one traveled from the attacks. Yes, in New York as anywhere else in the country there was anger as well as grief. But for those of us in New York, 9/11 represented a frightening answer to a question that anyone who lives in the City must inevitably pose: whether in living amid that buzzing and bustling confusion one sacrificed a crucial measure of control over life; whether the thin veneer of civility by which packed subway cars, crowded classrooms, and darkened streets become tolerable would one day vanish, revealing savagery and violence. My departure from normalcy was of course but the merest side-trip, compared to those of thousands of others, who returned that night to empty and grieving homes.
In the days after 9/11, perhaps inevitably, our leaders embraced the rhetoric of violence and revenge. But what was needed then was not cowboy swagger but civility, kindness, decorum: not just the kindness of the shopkeepers who had lined Broadway to pass out bottles of water to streets of weary and frightened commuters, nor just rightfully honoring the heroism of fallen rescue workers, nor just the admirable patriotism of thousands who volunteered for the armed forces in the following months; but also a belief in the power of laws, process, normalcy: that criminals can be brought to justice through the courts, that everyone can go back to school and work, and that the trains can run on time.
This is perhaps why the news of Osama bin Laden’s death fills me with ambivalence. It comes after a signal failure by President Obama—a man who believes as much as any in the power of laws and the limitations of violence—to close Guantanamo, to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial in a civilian court, and to fully to end unlawful interrogation practices and infringements on civil liberties. Perhaps none of these goals would have much impressed Osama bin Laden, and that is just why we should have embraced them. Instead, we are happy to crow over an enemy’s bloody death, a reaction bin Laden would have very much understood.
Any sane answer to Osama’s legacy of bloodshed, now as on September 11th, 2001, must start with a commitment to the power of process and normalcy. This commitment to the boring things in life is, perhaps, why we’re in a policy program: a belief that the war, the election, the revolution is never as important as the society in which we wake up on the morning after. A cost of such realism is, perhaps, a limitation to our political passions and a regulation of our hatreds and adorations. Ironically, the same weekend that Osama bin Laden was successfully assassinated, an unsuccessful NATO attempt on the life of Moammar Gadhafi instead killed the Libyan leader’s son as well as his three young grandchildren. Whether we are speaking of Obama, bin Laden or Bush, it is not leaders that ruin or redeem the world but the patterns of action they leave behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)