Search

In April 2021, New America's Open Technology Institute (OTI) and the Philanthropication thru Privatization Project (PtP) released a joint proposal that the federal government should invest a substantial portion of the windfall proceeds from future auctions of public airwaves (spectrum) to seed a new Digital Equity Foundation dedicated to addressing equity gaps in broadband adoption and affordability, education, telehealth, access to government services, and other critical areas. The next step in realizing this vision is now in the hands of Congress and other federal policymakers, as allocation of spectrum auction proceeds to support the creation of a Digital Equity Foundation requires legislation. Policymakers will also play a critical role in establishing the guidelines for the creation of an initial foundation board and mission. This paper serves to help flesh out the options for how that could be accomplished, drawing on a review of existing foundations created with public and nonprofit assets to identify best practices for how to start a foundation with public, quasi-public, or nonprofit funds. This paper is structured in five parts. Part I provides a brief overview of the proposed Digital Equity Foundation; Part II, examines some key examples of existing U.S. foundations that illustrate the use of public or quasi-public funds to support priority public needs; Part III, explores ways the proposed Digital Equity Foundation might be structured and organized to achieve its programmatic goals to advance digital equity and inclusion, while operating with appropriate transparency and public accountability; Part IV, considers additional legal considerations that surfaced in a review of foundations previously established under federal legislation; and Part V, provides a summary of concrete recommendations for the proposed foundation. [This report is a joint product of the Open Technology Institute at New America and the Philanthropication thru Privation Project.]

Recent changes in education and training policy in England continue to focus on creating a 'demand-led' system in an environment where public funds are dwindling and where more responsibility is being devolved away from central government. This raises questions about governance of the system, among others, and the roles that key system actors are expected to play. This paper broadly discusses education and training system policies that focus on workforce development in England and the US, especially with regard to the role of further education colleges (community colleges in the US), employer engagement, and local workforce development bodies. The focus is on governance at the post-secondary level, as the main interest is skills development after compulsory education. The US and England share a number of features and problems that affect the education and training system, such as lack of employer involvement, the lower status of sub-baccalaureate education and training providers despite their central role in delivering vocational education and training programmes, and insufficient links between education and training provision and the labour market. The most striking differences between the American and English systems are the governance and authority structures, which are stronger in the US and afford greater scope for strategic planning by states and between states and the federal level. The experiences of community colleges in working with employers to provide workforce training may be worth further investigation as further education colleges further develop this type of provision. The US experience is less instructive with regard to quality assurance or increasing employers' engagement with education.

Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a complete accounting of every resident in the United States. While there is no Congressional mandate requiring an accurate enumeration of Americans with disabilities by the Decennial Census, communities and people with disabilities will be affected if the Decennial Census is inaccurate. Census data are used by educators, policymakers, and community leaders and directly affect funding for many programs critical to individuals with disabilities, including programs for health care, transportation, employment training, and housing. Federal, state, and county governments use Census information to guide the annual distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in critical services and supports. While there have been some improvements in the use of a few disability questions and interview methodology in the Decennial Censuses for the past 30 years, those improvements have been small and incremental. At a time when cash strapped states are grappling with major unmet human service needs, and increasing numbers of people who require a range of services and supports from federal-state programs, the ability of our nation's public leadership is at an all time high to provide accurate Decennial Census (and related federal survey data) to states and locales. This paper addresses these issues and provides some recommendations for consideration by the Federal Government which include: (1) The U.S. Congress should legislatively require an official and accurate enumeration of Americans with disabilities through the Decennial Census, through related national Census-like efforts (e.g., American Community Survey); (2) The U.S. Census Bureau should immediately revise Census questions for the Year 2010 Census (and the American Community Survey) to reflect the ADA definition; and (3) The Bureau of Labor Statistics should finish its work with all due haste under the Executive Order 13078.

In the midst of the global recession, how have national governments viewed the role of higher education in their evolving strategies for economic recovery? Demand for higher education generally goes up during economic downturns. Which nations have proactively protected funding for their universities and colleges to help maintain access, to help retrain workers, and to mitigate unemployment rates? And which nations have simply made large funding cuts for higher education in light of the severe downturn in tax revenues? This essay provides a moment-in-time review of the fate of higher education among a number of OECD nations and other countries, with a particular focus on the United States, and on California--the largest state in terms of population "and" in the size of its economy. Preliminary indicators show that most nations have not thus far resorted to uncoordinated cutting of funding for higher education that we generally see in US state systems. Their political leaders see higher education as a key to short-term economic recovery, long-term competitiveness, and often their own political viability--particularly in nations with upcoming elections. Further, although this is speculative, it appears that many nations are using the economic downturn to actually accelerate reform policies, some intended to promote efficiencies, but most focused on improving the quality of their university sector and promoting innovation in their economies. One might postulate that the decisions made today and in reaction to the "Great Recession" by nations will likely speed up global shifts in the race to develop human capital, with the US probably losing some ground. The Obama administration's first stimulus package helped mitigate large state budget cuts to public services in 2009-10 and to support expanded enrollments largely at the community college level. But it was not enough to avoid having universities and colleges lay off faculty and staff, reduce salaries and benefits, often eliminating course offerings that slow student progress towards a degree, or making sizable reductions in access in states such as California. States have very limited ability to borrow funds for operating costs, making the federal government the last resort. "In short, how state budgets go, so goes US higher education; whereas most national systems of higher education financing is tied to national budgets with an ability to borrow." Without the current stimulus funding, the impact on access and maintaining the health of America's universities would have been even more devastating. But that money will be largely spent by the 2011 fiscal year (Oct 2010-Sept 2011), unless Congress and the White House renew funding support on a similar scale for states that are coping with projected large budget gaps. That now seems unlikely. The Obama administration announced its proposed 2011 budget in February, including $25 billion in state aid targeted for Medicaid. This is a modest contribution to states that face projected cumulative budget deficits of $142 billion in 2011, and there is uncertainty regarding the final federal budget. This is because Obama's proposal will be debated and voted on in a Congress increasingly focused on stemming the tide of rising federal budget deficits. Without substantially more federal aid to state governments, many public colleges and universities will face another major round of budget cuts. There is the prospect that higher education degree production rates in the US will dip in the near term, particularly in states like California that have substantially reduced access to higher education even as enrollment demand has gone up. (Contains 49 footnotes and 4 figures.) [A version of this paper was presented at the Beijing Forum, University of Peking, November 7, 2009.]

One major report after another shows that the United States needs a large, innovative, and effective adult education and workforce skills system. It is essential to the national security, economic stability, and democratic way of life. To address this need fully a leadership agency focused on a singular national goal is required, one with a legislative mandate to perform strategic planning and other coordination functions between and among federal agencies and public and private sector groups. Such an agency can accomplish its mission only if it is supported by a strong governance structure. The Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy (CAAL) proposes that the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) be reauthorized with a new and broader mission, mode of operation, and governance structure, and that these transformational elements be clearly set forth in the reauthorizing legislation. This will effectively create a new agency (with a new name, National Institute for Adult Learning, NIFAL) in place of the current National Institute for Literacy. NIFL, as chartered by the 1991 and 1998 Acts, might have been an important agency in the adult education field, but it was handicapped from the outset. Redeveloped as discussed in this paper, NIFAL will be able to take on the essential and far larger task of building an adult education and workforce skills system to meet the nation's 21st Century needs. About the Authors and NIFAL Working Group are appended. (Contains 7 notes.)

The four papers in this series were commissioned for the first meeting of the National Commission on Adult Literacy, which met in Nashville on November 14, 2006. The first paper, "Adult Education and Literacy Legislation and Its Effects on the Field," provides the basic provisions of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA, 1998): its purpose, eligible participants and providers, the indicators of performance, and other critical foundations in the legislation. It reviews critical elements of the transition from regulatory to continuous improvement modes and looks to what is on the horizon at the federal level. The second paper, "Adult Education & Literacy in the United States: Need for Services, What the Current Delivery System Looks Like," examines the adult education and family literacy system in the United States and suggests that the nation has a long-term adult education and literacy need. The third paper, "Introduction to Main Strands of Federal Adult Literacy Programming," provides basic summary information on recent initiatives and projects funded by the Division of Adult Education (DAEL) of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), and the U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL) and Health and Human Services (HHS). The fourth and final paper, "Federal Role in Adult Literacy, FY05-06," is divided into three sections: Section I deals with a single piece of legislation that contributes the major share of federal support for adult education in this country. Section II is comprised of federal programs of varying size--some operated out of the Department of Education and others operated out of other federal departments or agencies--in which basic skills or English as a second language for out-of-school youth and adults is an authorized activity, but funding is either limited to serving a particular subset of that population or available for any number of activities of which basic skills or English language instruction is just one option. Some of the latter programs may have very large appropriations, but funding for adult education activities may comprise a very small portion of those appropriations. Section III contains research and demonstration programs. Nine appendices are included: (1) Percentage of adults "Nonliterate in English," "Below Basic," and "Basic" in Prose literacy: 2003; (2) Sample document task: receipt for certified mail; (3) State-Administered Adult Education Program Fiscal Year 2003 Expenditures (July 1, 2003 - September 30, 2005); (4) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Personnel; (5) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment; (6) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment of Participants by Age; (7) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment of Participants by Race/Ethnicity; (8) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment of Participants by Gender; and (9) Workforce Investment Act, Title I (Department of Labor) and Title II (Department of Education and the National Institute for Literacy). (Contains 16 footnotes.)

The Decennial Census is the most important data collection activity undertaken by the U.S. federal statistical system. Because census data are used to apportion Congress and draw redistricting lines for thousands of state and local single-member districts to meet the one-person/one-vote guidelines, the census is at the heart of the political system. Also, census data are used to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds each year, and they are widely used by other government statistical agencies to calculate rates or design surveys. Children are the age group most often missed in the Decennial Census--the reasons range from their living in hard-to-count neighborhoods to the fact that the census form only has space for complete demographic information on six household members. The fact that children are the age group missed most often in the Decennial Census comes as a surprise to many people, even those who have closely followed census issues. Despite the long-standing problem of children being missed in the Decennial Census, little has been done to examine this issue. Missed children might be referred to as the "overlooked undercount" because the undercount of children has been a persistent problem that has been given relatively little attention over time. The high undercount of children challenges the image that the undercount is made up mostly of young adults and people who dodge the census-takers for nefarious reasons. Unlike adults, who may bear some responsibility for making sure they are counted in the census, children are dependent on others to make sure they are included. Yet in 1980, 1990, and 2000, Census Bureau data show children, particularly young children, are one of the groups most likely to be missed in the census. This publication provides some background and information on the undercount of children, describes some theories about why children are missed in the census, and outlines a few ideas for reaching the parents of young children with a message about the importance of being counted in the census. (Contains 2 figures, 1 box, 10 tables and 37 endnotes.)

The average educational attainment of US students is weak by international comparison. For example, mean results of PISA test scores are below the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] average. This is despite substantial resources devoted to the schooling system. One partial explanation for this is that academic standards, curriculum and examinations are not sufficiently challenging in most US states. In 2001, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to raise achievement levels, especially of certain groups that perform badly. The Act requires states to establish clear content standards as to what students should know, to regularly assess performance and to set thresholds for adequate yearly progress; it also requires schools where students are failing to meet such thresholds to improve or close, while enhancing options for parents of children in such schools to place their children elsewhere. The law appears to be well conceived, addressing key problems in a sensible manner. Preliminary indications are consistent with it raising school performance and closing achievement gaps. The NCLB legislation should therefore be reauthorised. Moreover, the NCLB framework of standards, assessment and accountability should be extended through upper secondary education. That said, there are a number of areas in which improvements could be made. Though the federal government cannot set standards, it could strengthen incentives for more states to make their standards more challenging. As well, the federal government should help states and districts to better test student achievement and assess progress. An annex provides: Further evidence on school performance. (Contains 12 tables, 3 figures, 2 boxes, and 23 notes.)

This paper examines labor market conditions and public employment policies in the United States during what some are calling the Great Recession. We document the dramatic labor market changes that rapidly unfolded when the rate of gross domestic product growth turned negative, from the end of 2007 through early 2009. The paper reviews the resulting stress on labor market support programs and the broad federal response. That response came through modifications to existing programs and the introduction of new mechanisms to help Americans cope with job loss and protracted unemployment. The particular focus is on federally supported public programs for occupational job skills training and temporary income replacement. We also discuss procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of public reemployment efforts, and adjustments to these programs that were adopted during the crisis. (Contains 6 tables, 5 figures, and 10 footnotes.)

Homelessness has emerged on the public agenda of economically advanced nations but not all such issues become recognized as "legitimate" social problems. National politicians and policymakers have an interest in defining the problem narrowly in order to avoid response and implied criticism of existing policies and institutions. Local officials and social agencies prefer a broader definition in order to obtain resources for policy and program implementation. This paper examines the progress of homelessness as a social issue in Canada. Chapter 1, "The Politics of Defining a 'New' Social Problem," discusses how politics, not the "objective reality" of homelessness, determines its status on the public agenda. Chapter 2, "Two National Governments: The U.S. and Canada," compares the debate over the definition of homelessness in the two countries, and demonstrates the extent to which the governments are attempting to narrow that definition. Chapter 3, "Local Initiatives: Three Examples from Toronto," reviews the following recent studies by local government and social agencies in Toronto (Ontario): (1) Metro Toronto's Study of the Homeless; (2) The Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto; and (3) The Single Displaced Persons Project. Chapter 4, "The Future of Homelessness as a Social Problem," discusses the following common themes in the definition of homelessness: (1) national scope; (2) long-term duration; (3) complex, multidimensional nature; and (4) the need for political commitment. A list of 43 references is included. (FMW)

This is a report on the Symposium that accompanied the 15-16 May, 2007 meeting of the UNAIDS Inter-Agency Task Team (IATT) on Education. The IATT Symposium provided an opportunity to address in some detail two selected problems that are critical to stemming the advance of HIV infection--areas that have had some attention, but remain insufficiently understood for education to make the impact that the Academy for Educational Development (AED) knows it can. This paper consists of five parts: (1) The Introduction gives a brief summary of the purpose and operating procedures of the IATT, outlines the purposes, organization, and structure of the May 2007 Symposium, and briefly describes each of the hosting organizations; (2) This section reflects the morning talk on HIV, AIDS and education in emergency, conflict, post-conflict and fragile states, a panel discussion thereupon, break-out group findings, and implications for the IATT; (3) This section covers the afternoon talk on Masculinity--how male gender roles affect learning and learning spaces and impact on vulnerability to HIV, a panel discussion thereupon, break-out group findings, and implications for the IATT; (4) Informational session on US Presidential initiatives in relation to HIV, AIDS and Education; and (5) Conclusion. In the first paper of this document, Dr. Gebrewold Petros of UNHCR, makes the case that it is essential that education programs refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) be attentive to the full range of issues around HIV and AIDS. This provides practical suggestions for how to move forward. His paper also provided opportunity for panelists and participants to share their own experience and jointly make suggestions to improve education for refugees and IDPs. The second paper, by Dr. David Plummer of the University of the West Indies, takes a very different approach and explores some of the research regarding how Caribbean boys develop their male identities, leading to some important conclusions about the roles of schools and teachers and how these really have to be rethought in regard to gender identity. His paper points to some of the negative results of "hard masculinity" in relation to boys' participation in education and puts rest to the argument that emphasis on girls' education has been to the detriment of boys--even though there are real reasons to be concerned about male educational achievement. The paper provoked some thoughtful reflections by panelists and served to provide a series of practical next steps for the IATT and others concerned with HIV, AIDS and education. Finally, the Symposium provided an opportunity for representatives of the US Government to discuss two key Presidential Initiatives. Ms. Michele Moloney-Kitts of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Response (PEPFAR) and Dr. Sarah Moten, of the President's Africa Education Initiative (AEI) made an unprecedented joint presentation. Their presentation outlined the main goals of each initiative and then identified the synergy between them. Appendices include: (1) Symposium Program; and (2) Participant List. Individual sections contain references. (Contains 3 boxes and 27 footnotes.)

The U.S. Department of Education Chapter of Blacks in Government (BIG) reviewed and responded to the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office] African American Workgroup Report. The BIG ED Chapter considered whether: There is any evidence indicating that the number and percentage of African Americans employed by any federal government agency is a variable in the barriers described in the Report. Articulated another way, do barriers still exist in agencies with large numbers and percentages of African Americans relative to the total number of employees in an agency? Do barriers exist in those agencies with small numbers and percentages of African Americans? The recommendations were timely and strategic, given: (1) The Obama Administration; and (2) The increasing numbers of other groups of people of color along with the lower number of Blacks employed by some agencies in the federal government. While the Report included unconscious bias as a barrier, the ED Chapter recommendations urge monitoring out and out racial discrimination and subtle forms of intentional racism. Recommendations include tracking and monitoring the furloughs, layoffs and other adverse actions for Black employees in all agencies, given sequestration. An appendix presents: EEOC African American Workgroup Report. (Contains 7 tables, 38 endnotes, and 9 notes.)

Approximately 10 percent of school-age children in the United States are enrolled in private schools, relieving the financial burden on public school systems, and the taxpayers who support them, of the cost of their education. At present, the tax code does not allow families who provide this financial relief an income tax deduction, even though such relief is a gift to governments for exclusively public purposes and thus analogous to a charitable donation. Using the Public Use Microdata Sample of the American Community Survey and the NBER Internet Taxsim calculator, this paper estimates that granting families who enroll their children in private schools an income tax deduction equal to the per-pupil expenditures in their public school district would cost the federal government an average of $7.75 billion per year over the 2006-2010 period. This amount is less than one percent of federal income tax revenues. Because private school enrollment, public school expenditures, the likelihood of itemization, and marginal tax rates increase with taxpayer income, the dollar benefits of this change are positively related to income. At the margin, high-income taxpayers would receive about 35 cents in federal and state tax relief for each dollar of per-pupil expenditures foregone.

This paper investigates the impact of federal extramural research funding on total expenditures for life sciences research and development (R&D) at U.S. universities, to determine whether federal R&D funding spurs funding from non-federal (private and state/local government) sources. We use a fixed effects instrumental variable approach to estimate the causal effect of federal funding on non-federal funding. Our results indicate that a dollar increase in federal funding leads to a $0.33 increase in non-federal funding at U.S. universities. Our evidence also suggests that successful applications for federal funding may be interpreted by non-federal funders as a signal of recipient quality: for example, non-PhD-granting universities, lower ranked universities and those that have historically received less funding experience greater increases in non-federal funding per federal dollar received.

This paper contributes to the debate over how the federal government can best help state and local authorities improve student achievement by providing examples from other countries of innovations in the role of the national government. The authors believe that the degree to which foreign policy structures parallel those of the United States are significant in such a comparison: Canada, Australia, and Germany also have federal systems of government where authority over most matters of education resides ultimately in state and local rather than the national government. Although such a system has historically constrained the ability of the federal government to influence student achievement, these governments are exploring new ways to improve student outcomes. The central recommendation of this paper is that the federal government, in addition to fostering a culture of accountability, must also help create an environment that enables success. Drawing on the experience of other federal governments, the authors suggest: (1) Expanding access to high-quality early childhood education, perhaps through federally supported vouchers making children ready for schooling; (2) Creating a common system for tracking students (of any age) who transfer between states; and (3) Making it easier for districts to find the teachers and principals they need through a national job databank and pension portability. Each federal government discussed in this paper has an established system of gathering and collecting education statistics, monitoring state performance, and developing standards for accountability, capacities that were built during the most recent wave of education reforms. Ultimate success, the authors conclude, depends on a second wave of reform that will increase the federal government's role not just in setting standards, but in helping states achieve them. (Contains 2 boxes and 1 figure.)

In this brief, authors Michael Ettlinger, Jordan Hensley, and Julia Vieira analyze how much the governments of different countries spend, and on what, to illuminate the range of fiscal policy options available and provide a basis for determining which approaches work best. They report that the United States ranks twenty-fourth in government spending as a share of GDP out of twenty-nine countries for which recent comparable data are available. The key determinant of where countries rank in overall government spending is the amount spent on social protection. The United States ranks last in spending on social protection as a share of GDP and twenty-second in per capita spending. The United States ranks at or near the top in military, health care, education, and law enforcement spending. Measuring government spending by different methods and including tax expenditures does not appear to significantly alter the conclusion that the United States is a low-tax, low-spending country relative to the other countries examined, particularly when compared to its fellow higher-income countries. [This paper is an evolution of a previous work, "Comparing Public Spending and Priorities Across OECD Countries" (ED606844).]

The internet continues to provide new and interesting solutions to age-old problems; this paper explores how education could benefit from online solutions. The history of public education in the U.S. is fractured at best, based on a system reliant on state and local control. As new legislation came into place to meet the needs of civil rights laws, and equal rights protection, the federal government has become increasingly involved leading to the national legislation "No Child Left Behind." Despite the increased standards and federal involvement, schools still suffer from a multitude of problems including poor performance on international assessments, achievement gaps between males and females, income groups and ethnic groups, and non-representative leadership in education. Using the theory of Emergence by Margaret Wheatley, I argue that online Communities of Practice can be used to create large-scale, grassroots change in an effort to solve many of our current problems in education. A transcript of a phone interview with Penelope Early is appended.

This monograph addresses key issues in the current discussion between accreditation and the federal government relative to accountability and higher education. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) now being discussed in Congress is driving this issue to the top of the academic agenda. The paper describes some of the accountability expectations of those in government in relation to accreditation, especially accountability and evidence of institution and program performance and student learning outcomes. It contrasts these government expectations with the accountability expectations of some in higher education and accrediting organizations themselves. The paper then examines four options that are being discussed in relation to these government calls for accountability in the context of the current reauthorization. One option offered by some in higher education is to do nothing on the assumption that, in relation to the current call for accountability, "this, too, shall pass." A second option is to affirm the value and effectiveness of current accreditation practice as adequate evidence of accountability. A third option has been offered by a member of Congress and would separate accreditation from the HEA on the grounds that the differences between what accreditation does and what government wants cannot be reconciled. A fourth option offered here seeks to bridge the divide that appears to exist between what government wants and what accreditation does by urging accrediting organizations and higher education to take steps to address the current accountability expectations in this reauthorization, but only in the context of the federal government acknowledging that these organizations and institutions (not government) have primary responsibility for judgments about academic quality, including institution and program performance and student learning outcomes. Appendix A presents the United States Department of Education Recognition Standards. Appendix B presents The Effectiveness and Value of Accreditation. (Lists 6 sources.) [This report was produced by CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance.]