A Nation of Polyglots – A Positive Turn in American Education

In today’s  New York Times, Joseph Burger writes about a new turn in American education: an increase of foreign language programs starting as early as kindergarten.   Fairfax and Loudon counties in VA, cities in New York and a slew of others are increasing foreign language skills among their students.  It is evident that younger children are able to learn a second language quicker and easier compared to high school students, even though high school, until recently, was the first opportunity to learn a second language.

I applaud these school program efforts as it is undeniable that we are moving towards a globally integrated world.  For far too long, America has been known for the monolingualism of its education system.  Most other countries around the world have been teaching their children dual or multiple languages, but we have chosen to teach English only until students are in high school.  This misses a critical opportunity to exploit the natural spongelike ability of younger students to soak everything up – therefore it is essential to start teaching at an early age.

The fact is that we need to be able to communicate, to understand languages and cultures of the world around us.  We are no longer closed off to other countries but are integrated economically and socially.  It is important that we make sincere efforts to close the language gap and learn in a style that will not only keep us integrated but also competitive for the global world we live in today.

-Courtney Haynes | Fellow

Making Retirement Savings Universal

In Carrie Schwab Pomerantz’s “Culture of Investing,” (Townhall.com, 11/13/07), she points out that “60 percent of people age 45 or older have less than $100,000 in retirement savings.”  While it is alarming that many are not saving at the levels needed to prepare for retirement, it should come as no surprise.  Many workers do not have access to investment vehicles that make savings possible.

Pomerantz highlights the good work done by employers, such as McDonald’s, which has tracked employee savings rates, instituted automatic enrollment plans, and initiated an aggressive matching program in the company’s 401(k) program.  Of course, many employers do not provide access to 401(k) or 403(b) plans, which leads to lower levels of savings.  As we all know, it is much easier to save in increments of $100 or $250, especially if it is automatically pulled from pre-tax dollars.  Instead, without the benefit of 401(k) or 403(b) plans, workers are required to contribute in denominations of $1,000 or $2,500 in after-tax dollars!

If we genuinely want to encourage every worker to save for retirement, we should be dedicated to providing a universal tax-deferred savings vehicle for every American.
-Lonny Stern | Communications and Outreach Director

Why are African Americans Slipping Down the Income Ladder?

Today, the Pew Charitable Trust’s Economic Mobility Project released three new reports showing that while two-thirds of Americans earn more than their parents, the ability of future generations to get ahead largely depends on their parent’s income. In addition, the study finds that mobility has racial disparities, with a significant finding that is likely to generate a lot of debate: African Americans are less likely to do better financially than their parents, and are more likely to fall down the economic ladder. This is true regardless of their income or class position.

Both of these findings are disturbing. For while it is undeniable that most Americans are better off than their parents (indicating that there is still mobility in America), the fact that this mobility is increasingly tied to the economic position of one’s parents undermines a core belief that America is a place where anybody can get ahead by hard work alone. That mobility appears to have a racial dimension is particularly discouraging.

What accounts for this downward mobility, particularly among  children of middle-class blacks? An article in the Washington Post quotes experts who speculate that the decline could be attributed to a number of factors, including an increase in the number of single-parent black households, the persistence of educational gaps between black and white kids, or the disparities in wealth between black and white families of similar incomes.

Whatever the cause, the findings have troubling implications for the promise of middle-class mobility in this country.

-Amanda Levinson | Director of Policy Programs

Video Blog: Voices from the Valley

After a few years’ hiatus, the media is again awash with news from Silicon Valley. The center of much of our nation’s technological innovation, Silicon Valley attracts some of the brightest, most creative thinkers from across the country and around the world. In many ways, Silicon Valley represents the ultimate promise of the American Dream: scores of young, smart, enthusiastic workers (immigrant and citizens alike) arrive here with a few ideas and an irrepressible work ethic, and transform themselves into successful entrepreneurs whose inventions change the world. As a result, the area (which runs roughly 60 miles, from San Francisco to San Jose) has been transformed into one of the most desirable–and expensive–places to live in the United States. The area is commonly referenced for articles about the New Gilded Age, and with good reason. The median price for a single-family home is $788,000, while the median income is $46,920 (nationally, those numbers are $212,300 and $30,400, respectively).

Indeed, the area is so expensive–and some of the salaries so high–that the New York Times coined a term oft repeated around these parts–“Working Class Millionaires”–people who have millions in the bank, but still feel, somehow, that they cannot get ahead. That’s not to say that everyone in the Valley is a millionaire–indeed, most people are not, and that’s where the problems arise. What’s it like to be “middle class” but have no hope of owning a home? How do most people afford basic necessities like health care, child care, and transportation?

In this occasional video blog, I will interview a cross-section of people who live and work in Silicon Valley for insight into these and other questions. It is my hope that these interviews will spark discussion about opportunity and the vitality of the American Dream.

-Amanda Levinson | Director of Policy Programs

The Lucky Poor

As has been widely reported, the latest U.S. Census Bureau statistics recently confirmed that America is experiencing the highest concentration of wealth since the Bureau began tracking this data 40 years ago. Now, the top 20% of all earners account for 50.4% of all U.S. wealth, while the bottom 20% earn only 3.4% of total U.S income. This has, naturally, led to outrage in some circles, looking to stem inequality wherever it rears its ugly head.

In “Out of It” (Townhall.com, 11.9.07), Paul Greenberg suggests that we should not be concerned with this Census data because the mean annual incomes of both the top fifth and the bottom fifth of all households rose in 2005. In his view, “What does it matter to me if other folks’ income is up so long as mine increases, too?”

He goes on to say: “Whenever figures likes these from the Census Bureau come out, we’re all supposed to be disturbed about the growing gap between rich and poor, or even upper-middle and lower-middle, but I’m still waiting for someone to explain why. And not just repeat vague pieties about the need to keep everybody roughly as rich, or rather as poor, as everybody else.”

I would respond that Greenberg has a point — we should not focus solely on how much money everyone is making. Instead, we need to focus on the conditions that lead to income inequality. Are people in the bottom 20% of all earners from households where good schools, good jobs, and health care are adequately available? I would say not. Were those in the top 20% of earners given an equal playing field for realizing success? Do upper and middle class youth have more access to capital, test preparation, and transportation alternatives than their lower class counterparts? I would say so.

It is time to stop pretending that income inequality happens in a vacuum and that all those in the upper income levels are “entrepreneurs and investors who made the growth possible.” Rather, some are just lucky.

Lonny Stern | Communications Director

I’m With Stupid

Cass Sunstein has a new book out “Republic.com 2.0,” (an update of his 2001 book “Republic.com”) in which he discusses the internet’s impact on political discourse in the modern age. Certainly, with the rise of the internet we have seen the political discourse stray from what we believe should be the purview of government. Rather than focus on kitchen table issues like education, health care, home ownership, retirement, trade, and taxes, we find ourselves talking about religion, social groups, CIA operatives, runaway brides, or sexual behavior. It is time for the new generation of business, political, and civic professionals to establish a voice about issues that matter to all Americans.

Of course, the danger of providing a voice to those with similar beliefs is falling prey to the “echo chamber.” People of like mind tend to reinforce beliefs rather than challenge them. In “The Internet is making us stupid” (Salon.com, 11/7/07), Ben Van Heuvelen asks Sunstein more about what he calls “The Colorado Experiment:”

“The way our Colorado experiment worked is, we got people from Boulder, a liberal place, together in small groups to talk about climate change, same-sex civil unions and affirmative action. On the same day, we got people in Colorado Springs, a conservative place, to talk about the same three issues. We asked them to record their views anonymously first, then to deliberate on them in small groups, then to record their views anonymously afterward. What we found was that on these issues, the Boulder people, before they started to talk, were pretty liberal, but there was a distribution of views, a degree of diversity. After they talked, they were significantly more liberal and less diverse. So, deliberation among our liberal citizens of Boulder produced more extremism and less diversity. In Colorado Springs, after they talked to one another, they went far to the right. They started out somewhat open-minded on these issues, somewhat diverse, and after discussion the diversity was squelched and the extremism was increased.

I think this is a clue to what is happening in the political domain all over the United States: People through their own voluntary behavior are replicating our Colorado experiment. Or, savvy political entrepreneurs are creating the conditions of our experiment because they want to decrease internal diversity.”

HSG is built on a diversity model; we strive to find leaders across the politicla spectrum to find common ground and create change. A recent illustration of this is our October Bi-Partisan Dinner, which focused on No Child Left Behind. There was one point in the evening when I looked across the table and saw Senator Graham (R-SC), Senator Stabenow (D-MI), John Podesta, and Ken Mehlman nodding together in agreement. Virtual communities provide an opportunity to bridge geographic fjords that the Colorado experiment highlight. Had the room in Boulder teleconferenced with the room in Colorado Springs, might the results have been different? It is the goal of online exchanges, like the HSG Exchange to encourage discussion, opposition, and re-evalutation. Frankly, I can’t see what’s so stupid about that. Of course, you might disagree with me, but that’s the whole point.

— Lonny Stern | Communications & Outreach Director

Brookings Offers a Vital “Blueprint for American Prosperity”

The Brookings Institute today launched their “Blueprint for American Prosperity – Unleashing the Potential of a Metropolitan Nation” with Bruce Katz, VP at Brookings and founding director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program leading the discussion on the importance of the changing demands of our nation and the urgent, catalytic government reform necessary for America to sustain its global competitiveness.  The Blueprint for American Prosperity was developed to enhance America’s metropolitan areas which are increasingly the core of the economy, providing the majority of jobs and homes.  Although the top 100 metropolitan cities account for only 12% of land area, 65% of the population resides in these cities and 78% of our national GDP is generated there.  The blueprint is intended to promote various government reforms in order for metropolitan areas to succeed in areas of innovation, infrastructure, human capitol and quality places.

The world is changing, America is changing and the federal government is failing to ignite necessary reforms to drive prosperity.  Instead of becoming more advanced, America has fallen behind other countries in education, infrastructure, energy, and technology.  How will America keep up? How will America accommodate a growing population?  Katz believes the answer is provided within the blueprint which outlines the proactive reforms the federal government should implement including productive and inclusive growth plans for metropolitan areas.  Furthermore, it is vital that local, state and federal governments collaborate with business, civic, and government professionals to offer solutions that focus on strengthening metropolitan areas to increase overall competitiveness. Katz’s work is extraordinary, addressing the problems America is facing in a straightforward manner and offering ideas for HOW they can be addressed in a productive and efficient way.  To read more about The Blueprint for American Prosperity, please visit www.blueprintpropserity.org.
-Courtney Haynes | Fellow

Tipping Sacred Cows

We’ve written a lot on this blog about why it makes sense to decouple major benefits, like health care and retirement, from employment.  A few years ago it would have been heretical for most policymakers, much less unions, to make these kind of statements. But times are changing.  Policymakers and influencers of all stripes are finally beginning to understand that the economy of the 21st century requires us to take on the sacred cows of the New Deal. A  new generation of mobile workers are estimated to change careers at least 10 times during their lives, a drastic departure from our parents’ generation, who changed jobs much less frequently (my mom taught at the same public high school for 25 years, and my dad is going on year 30 at his job).  As someone who has already changed jobs 4 times since graduating from college, I know that the likelihood of ending up–and staying–in an institution that provides a life-long pension like the ones my parents have is unlikely.  Flexibility and portability are the key features that workers between the ages of 18-38 need in their health, retirement and life insurance plans.  Luckily, we finally have some options, not to mention influential institutions, on our side.   Divided We Fail is a coalition of the AARP, SEIU, Business Roundtable, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses resolved to make access to health care and financial security, with a focus on revamping the systems to make them more portable, a priority in the ‘08 presidential campaign. It has the support of a remarkable array of congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle.  And self-employed workers and freelancers can tap into an innovative organization called the Freelancers Union to get health and life insurance (and maybe, in the future, access to a retirement plan).  Perhaps these policies could be extended beyond freelancers to the general workforce. In an article in this week’s Sunday New York Time’s Magazine, Matt Bai argues for a policy package of portable and flexible benefits that will “make the self-employed society a reality for everyone.”  His point is well-taken: American workers need a set of policies that, even if they are not self-employed, will allow them to transition rapidly from opportunity to opportunity. These principles should be front-and-center of any presidential candidate’s domestic policy agenda.

-Amanda Levinson | Director of Policy Programs

Reexamining Standards for Classes for the Gifted

New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein is taking an important step in promoting higher standards in the New York public school system – this time focusing on raising the bar for classes for the gifted (see the related article in the New York Times).  Recent nationwide reforms have mainly targeted low-performing schools and districts, oftentimes taking for granted relevant benchmarks for those that are regarded as “high-performing.”  Not only are gifted standards being reexamined, but they are also being accompanied by assessments that allow for nationwide achievement comparisons, which permit the school system to admit those students who score in the 95th percentile or above in the nation to enter gifted classes.

This holistic approach to standard-setting is not only raising questions of what is not acceptable in our education system, but also what is worth praising.  These steps are precisely the ones we need to shake our system out of its dangerous comfort zone.

Arian Hassani | Program Associate