DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft: Do Not Cite Without Permission from the Authors. 0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft: Do Not Cite Without Permission from the Authors. 0 Draft: Do not cite without permission from the authors. 0 Draft: Do not cite without permission from the authors. Unlike K-12, which has been the subject of a well-financed reform movement for the past decade and a half, higher education has largely flown below reformers’ radar screens, often viewed as a bright spot in America’s otherwise troubled education system. While Americans tend to give their local school high marks, they are far more skeptical about the quality of the public school system as a whole.1 In contrast, the U.S. higher education system has traditionally been viewed as the best in world, and Americans think much more highly of their colleges and universities than they do their public schools.2 Even though policymakers and the public have often griped about tuition increases, few have asked serious questions about whether the system performs as well as it should. For many, if the K-12 schools are America’s problem child, its colleges and universities are its overachieving golden one. Private donors, too, have tended to view colleges very differently than elementary and secondary schools. In K-12, philanthropic money has generally sought to change and improve K-12 schools, first by providing additional resources to particular schools and districts and more recently by changing the policies that govern them. In higher education, however, grants have traditionally subsidized colleges to do more of what they were already doing: more research, more fields of study and new curricula, more physical space and operating support to run it, and more scholarships to enable more students to get access to it. These investments help colleges accomplish their goals, but do little to change the way students outside of those campuses are educated or financed.3 More recently, however, elites’ rosy view of America’s higher education system has started undergoing serious revision, and higher education philanthropy has changed with it. According to data collected by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 1 Draft: Do not cite without permission from the authors. Development (OECD), while the United States ranks fourth in overall degree attainment for adults ages 25 to 64, the country ranks twelfth among the youngest cohort of workers (25- to 34-year-olds).4 While college enrollments are up, graduation rates have remained stagnant, hovering around 60 percent at four-year colleges and 30 percent in two-year schools.5 Student debt has ballooned past $1 trillion6, and labor market data suggest that nearly 45 percent of college graduates are underemployed—working jobs that do not require a college degree.7 In light of this evidence, policymakers on the left and right have started asking tough questions of colleges and universities. In 2006, George W. Bush’s Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings commissioned a hard-hitting report on the shortcomings of our higher education system. The report’s conclusion was blunt: “higher education has become . increasingly risk-averse, at times self-satisfied, and unduly expensive.”8 President Obama has been similarly critical of the state of American higher education. In his first State of the Union address he warned that the “countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow” and set a bold goal—that America would once again be the most educated nation in the world.9 By 2012, the President put colleges “on notice” for failing to keep tuition prices affordable,10 and in 2013 he proposed a set of reforms that would “shake up the current system, create better incentives for colleges to do more with less, and deliver better value for students and their families.”11 A far cry from all that best in the world talk. The changing politics of higher education did not occur in a vacuum. As we show in our data analysis, this change in perception of higher education has paralleled a shift in higher education philanthropy toward the policy and advocacy-oriented approach that had 2 Draft: Do not cite without permission from the authors. previously taken hold in K-12. Led by the Bill and Melinda Gates (Gates) and Lumina Foundations, a loose coalition of grantees has promoted a “completion agenda” focused on the need to improve student success rates at American colleges—and not just at elite schools, but at the thousands of other institutions where the bulk of American students enroll. Both organizations have set ambitious attainment goals—Gates aims to double the number of young, low-income Americans with a postsecondary credential while Lumina’s goal is to reach a 60 percent college attainment rate by 2025.12 In contrast to the access agenda that has dominated higher education policy for the past half-century, this emphasis on completion has entailed a lot more criticism of colleges—and the public policies that govern them—than has been the norm. Other scholars and journalists have already charted the rise of “advocacy philanthropy” in higher education, noting that it reflects a very different conception of American colleges than foundations have espoused in the past.13 Rather than seeing America’s institutions as the “best in the world” and as great social levelers, these new funders view traditional higher education (and the policies that govern it) as a sector that is deeply troubled, organized to serve the interests of administrators and faculty over those of students and taxpayers, and poorly designed to meet the needs of a changing student body. And, as scholars Scott Thomas and Cassie Hall argued in a 2012 paper, this perception is coupled with “distrust that higher education institutions can successfully enact reforms” on their own.14 In this chapter, we explore the evolution of this worldview and illustrate how it has driven Gates and Lumina to adopt a very different strategy of giving in higher education, one focused on making a public case for reform and empowering outside 3 Draft: Do not cite without permission from the authors. organizations to serve as credible counterpoints to the higher education establishment. We start by discussing the traditional approach to higher education philanthropy and the changing politics of higher education. We then analyze grant data from 15 large foundations that give to higher education, providing an empirical snapshot of the landscape that highlights the different approaches. We move on to discuss the pushback advocacy philanthropy has catalyzed and conclude with a discussion of whether the new approach is “good” for American higher education. Traditional Approach to Higher Education Philanthropy: Subsidizing More College In Rick Hess’s first edited volume on education philanthropy, With the Best of Intentions: How Philanthropy is Reshaping K-12 Education, University of Arkansas professor Jay Greene argued that the vast majority of philanthropic dollars given to K-12 education merely amounted to “buckets into the sea:” while the investments made by philanthropists may be substantial in absolute terms, they represented a tiny fraction overall spending on America’s public school system.15Therefore, such giving would be unlikely to effect change in the system over the long haul. This includes, for example, money for activities that schools would likely engage anyway using public dollars—such as professional development—or niche programs that would be difficult to sustain once philanthropic support ran out. In contrast to this “low-leverage” giving, Greene argued, “if philanthropists aspire to improve public education more broadly…Their private dollars have to be leveraged by redirecting future public expenditures.”16 Greene’s definition of low-leverage giving describes much of the philanthropic activity in higher education prior to the emergence of Gates and Lumina. But before 4 Draft: Do not cite without permission from the authors. exploring why that might be the case, it is important to distinguish between two very different varieties of grant making to higher education. One category of giving is broadly designed to affect higher education itself: scholarships; curriculum development; interventions to boost student success; research funding to study various aspects of higher education; and assorted projects that expose students and faculty to new ideas, fields of study, and cultural opportunities. This category includes efforts to improve individual campuses by funding new initiatives and capital projects (new buildings). A second category of grants leverages universities’ research capacity to improve the world in ways that may be unrelated to education: funding research to promote public health and medical breakthroughs, the development of new technology, and the preservation of the past. These research grants are directed toward colleges and universities and account for a substantial proportion of the philanthropic money that flows to higher education every year, but they are clearly distinct from category one in that they do not seek to affect education directly. Therefore, since our focus is on education, we focus on the first category here and in analysis below. For that category of giving, we posit that most foundations give the majority of their money to “low-leverage” grants. Why might that be the case? In the rest of this section, we explain why key characteristics of higher education might tilt the scale in favor of low-leverage giving even more so than in K-12. Colleges Are Held in High Esteem The first and most important difference is the one we started with in the introduction: colleges and universities occupy a very different—and more revered—place in the 5 Draft: Do not cite without permission from the authors. hierarchy of American institutions than the public schools. American universities dominate international rankings of research institutions, making up 15 of the top 20 schools on the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and 8 of the top 10 on the Shanghai Jiao Tong World University Rankings.17 And each year the world’s best students flock to these campuses to seek what the world perceives as the best undergraduate education money can buy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kevin Carey Interview
    UNDERSTANDING HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE INTERVIEW WITH KEVIN CAREY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION POLICY PROGRAM, NEW AMERICA As part of a project on higher education finance supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Nate Johnson interviewed a number of experts and leaders to gather different perspectives on how major budget choices are made. The interviews have been condensed for publication so that the key insights are available to anyone who is interested. This interview with Kevin Carey, author of The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere (2015), addresses the financial barriers to higher education, the need for public support and subsidies for higher education as well as the need for partnerships, and a possible transformation of public universities. _______________________ I'm wondering if you would help me connect the dots between two works that you've been involved in. The first is your book, The End of College, which is really a plea for a new way of thinking about what college is. The second is the financial argument in "Starting from Scratch," which posits that we need to move away from the voucher-based system of finance for higher education (that we've had in federal Pell grants) to something that is more institution focused and requires a greater level of shared commitment and responsibility between the federal government and the state. My attempt with the book, and New America’s attempt with “Starting from Scratch,” is to begin with the needs and concerns of students in this day and age, and the problems they face and the challenges of the higher education system writ large, and to try to take seriously the challenge of doing a much better job both on the access and affordability side of things and also the quality side of things.
    [Show full text]
  • Unsafe at Any Campus: Don't Let Colleges Become the Next Cruise Ships, Nursing Homes, and Food Processing Plants
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2020 Unsafe at Any Campus: Don't Let Colleges Become the Next Cruise Ships, Nursing Homes, and Food Processing Plants Peter H. Huang University of Colorado Law School Debra S. Austin University of Denver Sturm College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Education Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Citation Information Peter H. Huang & Debra S. Austin, Unsafe at Any Campus: Don't Let Colleges Become the Next Cruise Ships, Nursing Homes, and Food Processing Plants, 96 Ind. L.J. Supplement 25 (2020), http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/http-ilj-law-indiana-edu-articles-huang-unsafe-at-any-campus-pdf/, available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1312/. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNSAFE AT ANY CAMPUS: DON’T LET COLLEGES BECOME THE NEXT CRUISE SHIPS, NURSING HOMES, AND FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS PETER H. HUANG∗ AND DEBRA S. AUSTIN∗∗ The decision to educate our students via in-person or online learning environments while COVID-19 is unrestrained is a false choice, when the clear path to achieve our chief objective safely, the education of our students, can be done online.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Charter Colleges of Early Childhood Education
    Beyond Bachelor’s: The Case for Charter Colleges of Early Childhood Education Sara Mead and Kevin Carey August 2011 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 3 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5 II. EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FACES QUALITY CHALLENGES ........ 7 III. CONVENTIONAL APPROACHES ARE INADEQUATE FOR DEVELOPING THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATOR PIPELINE ................................................... 11 IV. INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS ARE TRAINING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS OUTSIDE TRADITIONAL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 18 V. STATES SHOULD ENABLE CHARTER COLLEGES OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ...................................................................................................... 28 VI. CHARTER COLLEGES OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WOULD PROVIDE MORE ADAPTIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE MODELS FOR IMPROVING EDUCATOR SKILLS ............................................................................................................... 36 VII. LOCAL AND FEDERAL LEADERS CAN SUPPORT STATES’ MOVEMENT TOWARD CHARTER COLLEGES OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ...... 39 VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 42 ENDNOTES ....................................................................................................... 44 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To enhance the quality of early childhood
    [Show full text]
  • DIPLOMAS and DROPOUTS Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (And Which Don’T)
    This report is embargoed until 12.01 am, Wednesday, June 3, 2009 DIPLOMAS AND DROPOUTS Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t) Frederick M. Hess Mark Schneider Kevin Carey Andrew P. Kelly A Project of the American Enterprise Institute June 2009 Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 National Findings 8 Regional Findings 17 Historically Black Colleges and Universities/ Institutions of High Hispanic Enrollment 19 Conclusion 21 Appendix 23 Notes 73 About the Authors 75 Figures and Tables: Figure 1: Percentage of Schools and Enrolled Students by Selectivity Category 7 Figure 2: Average Six-Year Graduation Rate and Range by Selectivity Category 9 Table 1: Variation in Average Graduation Rates within Selectivity Categories 9 Table 2: Top and Bottom Ten Schools by Graduation Rate according to Selectivity Category 10 Table 3: Average Six-Year Graduation Rate and Range of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Institutions of High Hispanic Enrollment by Selectivity Category 20 Table A1: Distribution of Institutions and Students by Selectivity Category 23 Table A2: Average Six-Year Graduation Rate and Range by Selectivity Category 24 Table A3: Transfer Rate Summary by Selectivity Category 24 Table A4: Top and Bottom Colleges and Universities in Each Region by Selectivity Category 25 Table A5: Complete Listing of Colleges and Universities Alphabetically by State 37 iii Executive Summary n the fall of 2001, nearly 1.2 million freshmen there are large differences between the schools that Ibegan college at a four-year institution of higher graduate most students and those that graduate few. education somewhere in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Debt to Degree: a New Way of Measuring College Success
    charts you can trust By Kevin Carey and Erin Dillon Debt to Degree: A New Way of Measuring College Success The American higher education system is plagued by two chronic problems: dropouts and debt. Barely half of the students who start college get a degree within six years, and graduation rates at less-selective colleges often hover at 25 percent or less. At the same time, student loan debt is at an all-time high, recently passing credit card debt in total volume.1 Loan default rates have risen sharply in recent years, consigning a growing number of students to years of financial misery. In combination, drop-outs and debt are a major threat to the nation’s ability to help students become productive, well-educated citizens. The federal government has traditionally tracked these issues by calculating, for each college, the total number of degrees awarded, the percentage of students who graduate on time, and the percentage of students who default on their loans. Each of these statistics provides valuable information, but none shows a complete picture. A college could achieve a stellar graduation rate by passing students along and handing out degrees that have little value in the job market, making it difficult for graduates to earn enough money to pay off their debt. Alternatively, a college could keep tuition and loan default rates low while also providing a terrible education and helping few students earn degrees. Students choosing colleges and policymakers governing higher education need an overall measure of value, one that combines debt and graduation. Education Sector has created such a measure, the “borrowing to credential ratio.” For each college, we have taken newly available U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Archived: Committee on Measures of Student Success
    Committee on Measures of Student Success A Report to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan December 2011 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 3 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Guiding Principles for Making Recommendations................................................................ 9 Moving Towards a More Complete Picture of Student Success ......................................... 11 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 13 Broaden the Coverage of Student Graduation Data to Reflect the Diverse Student Populations at Two-Year Institutions .................................................................................. 13 Improve the Collection of Student Progression and Completion Data ................................ 18 Improve Technical Guidance to Institutions in Meeting Statutory Disclosure Requirements ..................................................................................................... 22 Encourage Institutions to Disclose Comparable Data on Employment Outcomes and Provide Incentives for Sharing Promising Practices on Measuring Student Learning
    [Show full text]
  • Hispanic College Graduation Rates As a National Priority
    RISING TO THE CHALLENGE HISPANIC COLLEGE GRADUATION RATES AS A NATIONAL PRIORITY Andrew Kelly Mark Schneider Kevin Carey RISING TO THE CHALLENGE Hispanic College Graduation Rates as a National Priority Andrew P. Kelly American Enterprise Institute Mark Schneider American Institutes for Research American Enterprise Institute Kevin Carey Education Sector A Project of the American Enterprise Institute March 2010 Contents Foreword v Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 National Findings 8 Rising to the Challenge? 14 Policy Implications 19 Appendix 23 Notes 41 About the Authors 43 Figures and Tables: Figure 1: Percentage of Students in Each Selectivity Category 6 Figure 2: Hispanic Graduation Gap, by Selectivity 8 Figure 3: Hispanic Graduation Rates and Ranges, by Selectivity 9 Figure 4: Average Hispanic Graduation Rates among Top Ten and Bottom Ten Schools, by Selectivity 9 Figure 5: H ispanic and White Graduation Rates at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Overall and by Selectivity 12 Figure 6: H ispanic and White Graduation Rates at Non-Hispanic- Serving Institutions, Overall and by Selectivity 12 Figure 7: Graduation Rates of Hispanic and White Students in Each Selectivity Category, by Gender 13 iii Foreword igher education policy often focuses more on rates are one valuable measure of how quickly our Hcollege access than college completion. students are attaining degrees, and disaggregating Recently, however, the Obama administration, the graduation rates of students within and among sim - Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Lumina ilar institutions can inform both institutional efforts Foundation for Education have articulated the goal and broader public policy. Knowing where students of increasing college completion. While we may enroll and, in turn, what institutions are doing to argue about the diverse pathways to meet this retain and graduate them are important compo - national goal, data are clear that raising the college nents to increasing college completion.
    [Show full text]
  • DIPLOMAS and DROPOUTS Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (And Which Don’T)
    DIPLOMAS AND DROPOUTS Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t) 1150 Seventeenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Frederick M. Hess, Mark Schneider, 202.862.5800 www.aei.org Kevin Carey, and Andrew P. Kelly Cover illustration by Samuel Whitehead DIPLOMAS AND DROPOUTS Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t) Frederick M. Hess Mark Schneider Kevin Carey Andrew P. Kelly A Project of the American Enterprise Institute June 2009 Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 National Findings 8 Regional Findings 17 Historically Black Colleges and Universities/ Institutions of High Hispanic Enrollment 19 Conclusion 21 Appendix 23 Notes 73 About the Authors 75 Figures and Tables: Figure 1: Percentage of Schools and Enrolled Students by Selectivity Category 7 Figure 2: Average Six-Year Graduation Rate and Range by Selectivity Category 9 Table 1: Variation in Average Graduation Rates within Selectivity Categories 9 Table 2: Top and Bottom Ten Schools by Graduation Rate according to Selectivity Category 10 Table 3: Average Six-Year Graduation Rate and Range of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Institutions of High Hispanic Enrollment by Selectivity Category 20 Table A1: Distribution of Institutions and Students by Selectivity Category 23 Table A2: Average Six-Year Graduation Rate and Range by Selectivity Category 24 Table A3: Transfer Rate Summary by Selectivity Category 24 Table A4: Top and Bottom Colleges and Universities in Each Region by Selectivity Category 25 Table A5: Complete Listing of Colleges and Universities Alphabetically by State 37 iii Executive Summary n the fall of 2001, nearly 1.2 million freshmen there are large differences between the schools that Ibegan college at a four-year institution of higher graduate most students and those that graduate few.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN 2014 Update June 2015 Office of Research and Planning UPDATE: BRENAU ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING REPORT
    UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN 2014 Update June 2015 Office of Research and Planning UPDATE: BRENAU ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN EXPLAINED Environmental Scanning enables the understanding the changing external environment that may impact the organization and plays a key role in Strategic Planning, as diagrammed: Image taken from http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/enviroscan/ Environmental Scanning, By James L. Morrison An Environmental Scanning “science” has developed with a common language and several canons of categorization. For example, common groupings of critical environmental factors include Society, Technology, Economy, (Natural) Environment, and Politics (STEEP), but this scan will also include several other category topics also pertinent to such scanning. Brenau Office of Research and Planning | Environmental Scan Explained 2 UPDATE: BRENAU ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING REPORT Contents ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN EXPLAINED .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION: UPDATE EXPLAINED ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 “CORE” MISSION .......................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Kevin Carey Policy Director, Education Sector On
    Testimony of Kevin Carey Policy Director, Education Sector on Innovations in College Affordability to U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions February 2, 2012 Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about innovations in college affordability. My name is Kevin Carey, and I am the policy director of Education Sector, a non- partisan education policy think tank based here in Washington. The topic of today’s hearing is a crucial one because, as we all know, the price of higher education in America is spiraling out of control. Over the past 10 years, public university tuition grew by an average of 5.6 percent above inflation every year. As a result, student loan debt is at an all-time high and access to college is threatened. Students and families can’t afford to pay these bills and, increasingly, neither can the American taxpayer. Annual federal financial aid to higher education has increased by over $100 billion in just the past decade. We can’t just keep shoveling money into a system that consumes resources at an ever-faster clip. Innovation is needed, and needed badly. I would like to start by making a distinction between two elements of affordability: college costs and college prices. These terms are often used interchangeably, but they actually represent very different things. College costs are what colleges spend to educate students. College prices are what students pay to attend school. We need innovation in both college costs and college prices in order to fix the affordability problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting What You Pay For? a Look at America's Top-Ranked Public
    Getting What You Pay For? A Look at America’s Top-Ranked Public Universities April 2014 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is an independent, nonprofit organization committed to academic freedom, academic excellence, and accountability at America’s colleges and universities. Founded in 1995, ACTA is dedicated to working with alumni, donors, trustees, and education leaders across the United States to support liberal arts education, uphold high academic standards, safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus, and ensure that the next generation receives an intellectually rich, high-quality education at an affordable price. Getting What You Pay For? A Look at America’s Top-Ranked Public Universities a report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni April 2014 Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the staff of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, primarily Dr. Michael Poliakoff, vice president of policy, and Armand Alacbay, Esq., director of trustee programs, with the assistance of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Unless otherwise stated, all data are based on publicly available information including academic catalogs, news releases, institutional websites, and media reports. Since its founding in 1995, ACTA has counseled boards, educated the public, and published reports about such issues as good governance, historical literacy, core curricula, the free exchange of ideas, and accreditation. ACTA has previously published Education or Reputation?:
    [Show full text]
  • BUILDING a NEW AAU: the Case for Redefining Higher Education Excellence
    New America Education Policy Program Policy Brief BUILDING A NEW AAU The Case for Redefining Higher Education Excellence Kevin Carey June 2014 2 About the Author Kevin Carey is the Director of New America’s Education Policy Program. He can be reached at [email protected]. Acknowledgements The data analysis used to model a New AAU in this report was performed by Takeshi Yanagiura and Nate Johnson of Postsecondary Analytics, LLC. About New America New America is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States. The New America Education Policy Program’s work is made possible through generous grants from the Alliance for Early Success; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund; the Grable Foundation; the Foundation for Child Development; the Joyce Foundation; the Kresge Foundation; Lumina Foundation; the Pritzker Children’s Initiative; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; and the W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation. © 2014 New America This report carries a Creative Commons license, which permits non-commercial re-use of New America content when proper attribution is provided. This means you are free to copy, display and distribute New America’s work, or include our content in derivative works, under the following conditions: Attribution. You must clearly attribute the work to New America, and provide a link back to www.newamerica.org. Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes without explicit prior permission from New America.
    [Show full text]