When can get my assignment back?

Despite dramatic media attention and loud prote; by small groups, a majoi of the American public the opt-out movement.

8 EDUCATI ON NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 educationnext.org

P H

O T

O G

R A

P H

/A P

P H

O T

O ;R

O B

IN Z

IE LI

N S

K I

f e a t u r e

THE 2015 E D N E X T POLL ON SCHOOL REFORM

Public thinking on testing, opt out, Common Core, unions, and more

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS DISPLAYING ITS INDEPENDENT STREAK. Critics of testing will take no comfort from the findings of the 2015 Education Next poll—but neither will supporters of the Common Core State Standards, school choice, merit pay, or tenure reform. The unions will not like the public’s view on their demands that nonmembers contribute financially to their activities. Teachers will be unhappy to hear that public enthusiasm for increasing teacher pay falls through the floor when people are told current salary levels and asked if they are willing to pay additional taxes for that purpose. The Obama administration will be equally unhappy to hear what both teachers and the public think about its proposals to require similar student suspension and expulsion rates across racial and ethnic groups.

These are among the many findings to emerge from the ninth annual Education Next survey, administered in May and June 2015 to a nationally representative sample of some 4,000 respondents, including oversamples of roughly 700 teachers, 700 African Americans, and 700 Hispanics (see methodology sidebar). The large number of survey respondents enabled us to ask alternative questions on the same topic in order to determine the sensitivity of opinion to new information and particular wording. We also posed many new questions in 2015, allowing us to explore opinion on curricular and other issues that have never before been examined in a nationally representative survey of the American public. Results from the full survey are available online at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.pdf; for a

by MICHAEL B. HENDERSON, PAUL E. PETERSON, AND MARTIN R. WEST

e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 / E DUCA TI ON NEXT 9

graphic display o f m ost findings, please see educationnext. org/2015-ednext-poll-interactive.

Testing and Accountability In early 2015, as Congress began rewriting the No Child

Left Behind Act (NCLB), no issue loomed larger than the use of student testing to measure the perform ance o f schools and teachers. Media reports featured teachers decrying a scourge of

Support for Testing, Opposition to Opt Out (Figure 1)

( a ) A m o n g the pu b lic a n d parents, m ore than tw o-thirds support a fed era l requirem en t fo r a n n u a l testing, while opinion a m o n g teachers is evenly split.

(P e r c e n ta g e )

Public Parents Teachers

(b ) A m a jo rity o f the public, parents, a n d teachers oppose the o p t-o u t m ovem ent.

Public Parents Teachers

S u p p o rt N e ith e r H Oppose

Q uestion (a): Do you support or oppose the federal government continuing to require that all students be tested in math and read­ ing each year in grades 3 -8 and once in high school?

Q uestion (b): Some people say that ALL students should take state tests in math and reading. Others say that parents should decide whether or not their children take these tests. Do you sup­ port or oppose letting parents decide whether to have their children take state math and reading tests?

overtesting. By spring, hundreds of thousands of parents had chosen to have their children “opt out” o f state tests, garnering the rousing approval of the teachers unions. O ut on the hus­ tings, Republican presidential candidates escalated their critique of the Com m on Core. The m ovem ent to put “the standardized testing m achine in reverse,” in the words of New York m ayor Bill de Blasio, seemed to have legs.

It is perhaps surprising, then, that in July a bipartisan Senate superm ajority of 81-17 passed a revision of NCLB that keeps the federal requirem ent that all students be tested in m ath and reading in grades 3 to 8 and again in high school. Has the upper cham ber ignored the people’s will? Or, is the public’s appetite for the in fo rm atio n provided by regular stu d en t testing broader and m ore robust th an the m edia coverage would indicate?

O u r polling suggests the latter (see Figure 1). A solid 67% o f m em bers o f the public say they su p ­ p o rt continuing the federal requirem ent for annual testing, while ju st 21% oppose the idea, w ith the rem ainder taking a neutral position. P arental su p ­ p o rt for testing (66%) is about as high as th at o f the public as a whole. Teachers are divided down the m iddle, w ith 47% saying yes and 46% saying no to co ntinuing the policy.

In 2012, the last time we asked this question, 63% o f the public said they supported annual testing, and only 12% opposed. In o th er w ords, the shares of supporters and opponents are both slightly higher in 2015 th a n they were three years ago, w ith the share taking a neutral position declining from 25% to 13%. This shift could suggest that public opinion has crystallized in the intervening years (but it may also reflect the fact that o u r survey presented the neutral response option m ore prom inently in 2012). Either way, the backlash against standardized testing appears less potent than opponents claim.

Opting out. The House of Representatives also passed a reauthorization bill requiring that states m aintain annual testing regimes, but its version differs from the Senate’s in one key respect: it allows parents to “opt out” of state tests, despite the fact that the federal govern­ m ent does not require that the tests be used to evaluate the performance of individual students. The difference between the two bills looms large, because one cannot assess school performance accurately unless nearly all students participate in the testing process.

W hat do people think of the opt-out movement? To find out, we asked whether they thought parents should be able to decide whether or not their children take annual state tests. O ur results reveal little public sympathy for giving parents this option (see Figure 1).

10 EDUCATI ON NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 ed u ca tio n n e x t.o rg

f e a t u r e 2 015 P O L L HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST

OUR RESULTS REVEAL little public sympathy for the opt-out movement: only 25 percent of members of the public like the idea of letting parents decide whether their children are tested, while 59 percent oppose it.

Only 25% of members of the public like the idea of letting parents decide whether their children are tested, while 59% oppose it. Among parents themselves, just 32% favor the opt-out approach, while 52% oppose it. Fifty-seven percent o f teachers also dislike the idea, with only 32% giving it their support. In short, as Senate and House negotiators turn to ironing out differences between their bills, the Senate team can argue that its approach to “opt out” (which does not require states to offer that option) is backed by strong majorities o f the public and o f teachers.

Accountability: who should hold the reins? A n o th e r fa u lt lin e in th e d eb a te over the p ro p o se d federal ed u catio n law lies betw een C ongress an d the executive branch. As o f late July, both the Senate and the H ouse bills defer to the states on the question o f how to design their school ac co u n tab ility program s. The O bam a ad m in istratio n , backed by civil rights and busi­ ness groups, w ants the feds to have m ore voice in defining w hat constitutes a “failing school” and in proposing rem edies. But the Senate has nixed the so-called M urphy A m endm ent, which would require states to identify and intervene in th eir low est-perform ing schools; high schools w ith fewer th a n 67% on -tim e graduates; and an y school w here d isadvantaged or disabled students fall sh o rt o f standardized test goals for two consecutive years.

W here do people come down on this debate? To find out, we asked o u r respondents which level o f govern m en t (federal, state, or local) should play the largest role in three key aspects o f the design o f school accountability programs:

• Setting education standards for what students should know; • Deciding whether or not a school is failing; and • Deciding how to fix fading schools.

the local governm ent should play this role (see Figure 2). But people clearly want the feds in the back seat w hen it comes to identifying and im proving failing schools. O nly 18% of respondents say that the federal governm ent should play the largest role in identifying fading schools, and 20% say it should do so w hen it comes to fixing them. The percentages o f those who say the states should have the lead role in these areas are 50 and 51, respectively.

Public Envisions Small Federal Role in Fixing Failing Schools (F igure 2) Only 18 percent o f the public says that the federal government should play the largest role in identifying failing schools, and 20 percent says it should do so when it comes to fixing them.

Who should play th e biggest role in .

60

Setting educational standards?

Deciding whether or not a school is failing?

Federal government ■ State government

Deciding how to fix

failing schools?

! Local government

W hen it comes to standard setting, mem bers o f the public are evenly divided over whether the federal governm ent or the states should be in the driver’s seat: 43% say the states, and 41% say the federal governm ent, while just 15% suggest that

Q uestions: Based on your best guess, what level of government should play the biggest role in each of the following: 1) Setting educational standards for what students should know. 2) Deciding whether or not a school is failing. 3) Deciding how to fix failing schools.

educationnext.org W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 / EDUCATION NEXT 11

Given the backing o f civil rights groups for a larger federal role in this area, it is w o rth n o tin g th a t n e ith e r A frican A m ericans n o r H ispanics differ notably in their thinking from that o f the broader public with respect to the role o f the fed­ eral governm ent in school accountability. A m ong A frican A m ericans, th e share favoring federal leadership across the three topics is 46% for setting standards, 23% for identifying failing schools, and 23% for fixing failing schools, respectively. Among Hispanics, the parallel num bers are 44%, 18%, and 29%.

In short, if those in our nation’s capital want to modify federal education policy along lines preferred by the public at large, they will enact a law that resembles the bipar­ tisan bill passed by the Senate. Education secretary Arne Duncan has indicated that the administration will not support a bill that doesn’t strengthen federal oversight of school accountability measures. If it should come down to a presidential veto, defending that action to the public on these grounds would be an uphill battle.

O pp osition to C om m on Core C ontinues to Grow am ong Both Teachers and General Public (Figure 3) Thirty-five percent o f the public now expresses opposition to the Common Core, up fro m 26 percent in 2014. Democrats remain more supportive o f Common Core than Republicans are.

(Percentage)

2013 2 0 1 4 201 5

Public

Teachers

The Common Core W hile su p p o rt for standardized te s t­

ing rem ains strong, the debate over the C om m on Core State Standards continues to divide b o th teachers and the general public (see Figure 3). Support for using the C om m on Core, which fell from 65% in 2013 to 53% in 2014, has now slipped slightly further, to 49%. Still, only 35% of m em bers of the public express opposition to using the standards, with the rem aining 16% undecided. D em ocrats (57%) rem ain m u ch m o re supportive o f the O bam a- backed policy than Republicans are (37%).

The latest decline in support for these standards does not arise sim ply from a politically tainted C om m on Core “b ran d .” Among a second group o f respondents who answered the same question but w ithout the phrase “C om m on Core,” support for the use of shared standards across the states slid from 68% in 2014 to 54% in 2015.

It is interesting to note that this year’s dif­ ference between those favoring the Common

Democrats

S u p p o rt N e ith e r H Oppose

Q uestion: As you may know, in the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards fo r reading and math that are the same across the states. In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable fo r their performance. Do you support or oppose the use o f the Common Core stan­ dards in your state?

12 EDUCATI ON NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 e d u c a tio n n e x t.o rg

f e a t u r e 2 0 1 5 P O L L HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST

THE BROADER PUBLIC'S OPPOSITION to the Common Core appears to rest on a shallow factual foundation. When asked whether or not the Common Core is being used in their local school district, fully 58 percent admit that they do not know.

Core standards (49%) and those favoring generic standards (54%) is just 5 percentage points. In 2014, that differential was 15points. Why? It m ay be that the debate over national standards has been so energetic over the past year that the public now is more aware o f the issue, whether or not the phrase “Com m on Core” is mentioned.

A th ird group o f respondents were not told the standards would be “used to hold public schools accountable for their perform ance.” W ithout the accountability phrase in the ques­ tion, support for the C om m on Core falls to just 39%, with 37% opposed. The pro p o rtio n o f people with no opinion increases from 16% to 23%.

Teacher su p p o rt is also sliding. In 2013, 76% o f teachers supported the C om m on C ore—giving it a far greater approval ra tin g th a n did the general public. But teacher approval collapsed to 46% in 2014 an d has now fallen to ju st 40%. Meanwhile, the share o f teachers expressing opposition has risen to 50%, leaving just 10% undecided. Unlike the public at large, teachers are more likely to express support for the C om m on Core when the survey question does not include the accountability phrase. They divide evenly w hen the question om its that phrase, w ith 44% in support and 43% opposed.

The news for proponents o f the C om m on Core is not all bad. Those who favor the C om m on Core continue to o u t­ n u m b er opponents, by 14 percentage points. Also, the rate o f decline in support slowed m arkedly between 2014 and 2015, perhaps suggesting th at opinion on the issue has begun to stabilize. M oreover, the broader public’s opposition to the C om m on Core appears to rest on a shallow factual founda­ tion. Asked w hether o r not the C om m on Core is being used in their local school district, fully 58% o f the m em bers o f the public adm it th at they do n o t know. Only 44% o f residents in states th at have adopted the C om m on Core realize that the standards are being used in their school districts; and perhaps m ore startling, 24% of residents in states th at do not have the C om m on Core believe their districts are using the standards.

Yet am ong the 34% o f the public who report that the stan­ dards are being used in their district, respondents who believe the standards have had a negative effect on schools (51%) exceed those who think they have had a positive effect (28%). Twenty- one percent give a neutral response. Teachers and parents, who claim greater knowledge of whether the standards are in use, are just as negative in their assessment of the impact. Seventy-three percent o f teachers report that the standards are being used in

their district, with 49% of that group reporting negative effects and 32% reporting positive effects. Among parents, 49% say that the standards are being used in their district, with 53% reporting negative effects and just 28% reporting positive effects.

In other words, teachers and parents who say their district is im plementing the standards are the ones m ost likely to offer a critical assessment of their impact. That finding should be of concern to all those hoping to see the C om m on Core succeed.

Changes in Support for School Reform In retrospect it looks as if 2014, an election year that swept

Republicans into power in Congress and m any state capitals, propelled school reform to a high-water m ark that has proven difficult to sustain. For three years in a row now, we have asked either identical or quite similar questions on several issues. O n a surprising num ber o f them , support for policy changes has slipped in 2015 from peaks attained in 2014, though som etimes the fall is to a level th at rem ains above the one reached in 2013. N one of the changes are large, and some of the shifts fall short of statistical significance, leaving it unclear as to w hether a true change has taken place. But consider the overall pattern o f responses across m ajor parts o f the school reform agenda (see Figure 4):

• Charter schools. Support for charter schools has dipped from a high of54% in2014to51% in2015,thesam e level as in 2013. However, the percentage supporting charters remains twice that of the 27% expressing opposition. • Tax credits fo r scholarships fo r low-income students. Support for a tax credit for businesses and individuals who contribute to private-school scholarships for low-income families has also fallen, to 55% from 60% in 2014. (This question was not asked in 2013.) • Vouchers fo r low-income students. Backing for the use o f “governm ent funds to pay the tu itio n o f low -incom e students who choose to attend private schools” has fallen steadily—from 41% to 37% betw een 2013 an d 2014, with a further (though n o t statistically significant) drop to just 34% in 2015. • Universal vouchers. Public enthusiasm for universal vouchers w ithout regard to incom e has slipped from 50% in 2014 to 46% in 2015, just a bit higher than the 44% level reported in 2013. (However, these changes are not

e d u c a ti o n n e x t .o rg W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 / EDUCATION NEXT 13

statistically significant and the comparison is not exact, as the question in 2015 for the first time included the word “all,” clearly presenting vouchers as a universal benefit for every family.) • Merit pay for teachers. People are not fully embracing policy reforms affecting teachers. Between 2014 and 2015, public support for merit pay has slid from 57% to 51%, about the same as in 2013, when m erit pay garnered sup­ port from 49% of the population. Even so, just 34% of the population opposes merit pay, with the remainder taking a neutral position. • Tenure. Between 2014 and 2015, public opposition to teacher tenure has also slipped, from 57% to 51%, just above the 47% level attained in 2013. Nonetheless, current public support for teacher tenure is just 29%, a little more than half the size of the opposition.

One hesitates to read too much into shifts in opinion that are only modestly larger than what a statistical aberration might account for—and in some cases, not even that big. Perhaps the higher levels of support we observed in 2014 reflected temporary shocks to public opinion stemming from

Public Support for School Reform Slips ( F i g u r e 4 ) Small decline in support for charters, tax credits, merit pay, and ending tenure

events such as W isconsin governor Scott W alker’s recall election and the landm ark Vergara v. California decision that struck down California’s teacher evaluation and tenure laws, both of which took place while our survey was in the field. But school reformers might take the 2015 findings as a red light on the dashboard, a warning that efforts to alter the public’s thinking on education policy may be faltering.

P e r c e n t o f t h e p u b lic in f a v o r o f . . .

Common Core*

Charters*

Tax credits**

Vouchers to low-income families

Universal vouchers

m

warn Merit pay**

Ending te n u re**

m

10

2 0 1 4

2 0 3 0

2015

4 0 5 0

* Change significant at 90 percent confidence level ** Change significant at 95 percent confidence level

Q u e s tio n s : See complete results at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.pdf

Expenditures and Salaries In its 2016 budget, the Obama adm inistration has pro­

posed a new billion-dollar federal program, Teaching for Tomorrow, which requests an additional $1 billion in federal funding for services to children from low-income families. It also calls for more money for English language acquisition programs, civil rights enforcement, and special education services. Reporters nonetheless have pronounced the budget “dead on arrival,” as Congress is reluctant to increase spend­ ing at a time when the country is running a large fiscal deficit. Consistent with these reports, the House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution that calls for a more than 8% cut in federal spending.

Missing from virtually all the media coverage of these developm ents are answers to a few basic questions: How m uch do we currently spend per pupil? How much does the federal government contribute to the total expenditure? And does the public think spending should be increased? To gauge people’s knowledge and views on these matters, we asked our respondents a series of questions concern­ ing school spending.

A m ericans greatly u n d e re stim ate the am ount of money spent on schools.

60 According to the federal governm ent’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the school districts in which our survey respondents resided spent an aver­ age of $12,440 per pupil in 2012 (the most recent data available). But when we ask respondents to estimate per-pupil expen­ ditures in their local school district, they

60 guess, on average, just $6,307, a little more than half actual spending levels.

Our survey found that people are often willing to alter their thinking when given additional information. Before asking our respondents if they thought spending in their districts should be increased, we told half of them what the current spend­ ing levels were. The other half were left

155

50 |4 6

57 151

H 5 7

1 4 EDUCATI ON NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 ed uc a tio n n e xt .o rg

f e a t u r e 2015 POLL HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST

S C H O O L R E F O R M E R S might take the 2015 findings as a red light on the dashboard, a warning that efforts to alter the public's thinking on education policy may be faltering.

uninformed. Among those not informed, 58% favor increases in spending. That support drops to 42% when people are told the actual level of expenditures (after having provided their own estimate).

Respondents who most seriously underestimate spend­ ing levels are the ones most likely to change their minds when told the facts. W hen those who underestimate school expenditures by $5,000 or less are told real spending levels, their support for increased spending drops by 12 percentage points. Among those who underestimate expenditures by more than $5,000, the downward opinion shift, upon being informed of real levels, is 20 percentage points. On the other hand, those who overestimate expenditures barely budge in their opinions when told their districts spend less than they thought.

Sources o f funding: who pays what? Americans are also poorly informed about the sources of funding for the nation’s schools. We asked half of our respondents, random ly selected, to estimate “what percentage of funding for schools currently comes from each level of governm ent”—federal, state, and local. The question required respondents to make their percentages add up to 100. NCES data from 2011-12 (the most recent available) indicate that the actual levels are 10% for the federal government, 45% for state governments, and 45% for local governments. But people greatly overstate the federal share, estimating it as 32% (see Figure 5). In turn, they believe that state and local governments contribute less than they actually do.

The other half of respondents were asked how much funding should come from each of these sources. The average responses are 37% for the federal share, 35% for the state share, and 28% for the local share. In other words, people think the federal government should assume con­ siderably more of the cost of schooling than its current 10% share, and local government should carry a consider­ ably smaller burden than the 45% share it now bears.

Teacher salaries. To explore national opinion on teacher pay, we randomly divided our respondents into four groups. One group was simply asked whether teacher salaries should be raised. Another was asked whether taxes should be raised to fund salary increases. A third group was first told the average teacher salary in their states before being asked whether salaries should be raised. The fourth group was told the average teacher salary and then

asked whether taxes should be raised to fund increases. In the first group, 63% of respondents favor a pay increase

for teachers (see Figure 6). Support falls to 45%, however, when the question (posed to the second group) asks about raising taxes to pay for teacher salaries.

In the third group, informed of current salaries, 45% of respondents support pay increases. And only 32% of people in the fourth group, told teacher salaries and asked if taxes should be raised, support a hike in teacher pay.

In sum, it is hard to say whether the public really wants a salary increase for teachers or not. It all depends on how much members of the public know and whether they are keeping in m ind that the increment has to be covered by themselves as taxpayers.

Misunderstanding the Federal Role in Financing Education (Figure 5) Americans believe the federal government shoulders a greater share o f public school funding than it actually does.

Federal government HK State government

■ Local government

Q uestion, perceived: Based on your best guess, what percent of funding for schools currently comes from each level of government?

Q uestion, desired: What percent of funding for schools should come from each level of government?

S O U R C E : 2 0 11-12 sc h o o l y e a r. N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r E d u c a tio n S ta tistics

e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 / EDUCATION NEXT 15

Racial Disparities in Suspension Rates In 2014 the U.S. D epartm ent of Education and the

Department of Justice sent a joint letter to every school district in the country, urging local officials to avoid racial bias when suspending or expelling students. Officials were advised that they risked legal action if school disciplinary policies had “a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race.” In the Fall 2014 issue of Education Next, Richard Epstein, a professor at the New York University School of Law, criticized the action of the two departments, averring that it “forces school districts to comply with a substantive rule of dubious legal validity and practical soundness.” But in June 2015, the Supreme Court, in a Texas housing case, bolstered the departments’ position by holding that statistical evidence of “disparate impact” across racial groups could indeed be used as evidence that a government policy was discriminatory.

W hat do members of the public—and what do teachers— think of federally mandated “no-disparate-impact” disciplin­ ary policies? And what do they think of such policies if set by local school districts? To find out, we split our sample into two randomly selected groups (see Figure 7). The first was asked whether it supported or opposed “federal policies that prevent schools from expelling or suspending black and Hispanic students at higher rates than other students.” Fifty-one percent of the public opposes such policies, while just 21% backs them. That division of opinion is essentially

Tenuous Support for Higher Teacher Salaries (Figure 6)

When the public is informed of teacher salaries, support for increasing salaries declines. Support drops even further when the public is reminded that an increase would be funded by tax dollars.

Public support for increasing te a c h e r salaries

Uninformed

Informed

Public support for increasing ta x e s to fund te a c h e r salaries

Uninformed

Inform ed______________

60 70

the same among the second group, who was asked about school district policies of the same sort. By a large margin, the public opposes “no-disparate impact” policies, regardless of whether the federal government or the local school district formulates them.

The division of opinion within the teaching profession approximates that of the public as a whole. A hefty 59% of teachers oppose federal “no-disparate impact” policies, while only 23% favor them.

Differences of opinion emerge along racial and ethnic lines. Among whites, only 14% favor the federal policies, while 57% oppose them. Higher levels of support are observed among African Americans—41% are in favor, 23% against. However, only 31% of Hispanic respondents approve of such policies, with 44% opposed.

10 20 30 4 0 50 Percentage

Q uestions: See complete results at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.pdf

U nion Fees for N onunion Teachers In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review

an appeals court ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case challenging a California law that allows public-sector unions to levy an agency fee on all teachers who refuse to join the union. Such fees are allowed in 21 states plus the District of Columbia.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), defends the law on the grounds that “unions have a right to collect a fair share from the people [they] rep­

resent,” regardless of whether the people want to pay, so that the AFT can “ensure that we’re able to speak for all workers.” But teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, the lead plaintiff, contends that col­ lective bargaining is political speech. Thus, she maintains, the required agency fee denies her constitutional right of free speech because the union uses her money to speak for purposes with which she disagrees.

The California law allows individual teachers to request a refund of the portion of their dues that is used for political purposes—helping to elect candidates, lobbying for union-sponsored legislation, or financially assisting like-minded groups. Such costs run into hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly one-third of the dues unions ask school districts to collect. But every teacher, union member or not, still must pay the remaining two- thirds of the fee to help fund collective bargaining. Friedrichs argues that the act of bargaining with public officials is every bit as political as donating to political campaigns.

Our data indicate that a plurality of people— indeed a decided m ajority of those with an opinion on the m atter—agree with Friedrichs

1 6 E D U C A T I O N N E X T / W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 e d u c a ti on ne x t. or g

f e a t u r e 2015 POLL H E N D E R S O N , P E T E R S O N , & W E S T

PEOPLE ESTIMATE that current school expenditure levels in their school district are only half of their actual levels. When told actual levels, support for increases falls to 42% from the 58% level among those who are not so informed.

(see Figure 8). Only 34% support agency fees, while 43% oppose them, with the balance taking a neutral position. If we exclude the neutral group, then a clear majority, 56% of those with an opinion, say they want to end mandatory agency fees. This finding comports with the public’s overall opinion of teachers unions, as only 30% of respondents say unions have had a positive effect on schools and 40% say they have had a negative effect.

The more surprising results came from the teachers. Only 38% of teachers favor the agency fee, while 50% oppose it, with the remaining 13% expressing no opinion. In other words, 57% of teachers with an opinion on agency fees disagree with the AFT and the National Education Association. Union members constitute 46% of our teacher sample, roughly equal to national estimates of teachers union membership. Only 52% of these union teachers like the agency fee, and the approval rating plummets to 25% among nonunion teachers. These findings should not be extrapolated to say that teachers are turning against their unions more generally. Fifty-seven percent think the unions have had a positive effect on schools, and only a quarter think they have had a negative impact. But most teach­ ers do seem to agree with Friedrichs that they should be able to decide whether to contribute money to cover collective-bargaining costs.

have de-emphasized STEM ... to the point that people who could have become scientists or engineers ... didn’t get the educational experience they needed.” To which Rocco Landesmann, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, replies: “We’re going to try to move forward all the kids who were left behind by No Child Left Behind.... It’s very often the arts that catches them.” Meanwhile, journal­ ist Amanda Ripley says that “it’s worth reevaluating the American sporting tradition. If sports were not central to the mission of American high schools, then what would be?”

“No-Racially-Disparate-Discipline” Policies Opposed by Both Teachers and General Public (F igure 7) H a lf o f the public and over h a lf o f teachers oppose policies requiring similar suspension rates across racial groups. A higher level o f support fo r these policies is observed among African Americans and Hispanics.

(Percentage)

P u b lic

Academic Emphasis in K-12 Education Have federal testing requirements forced schools

to place excessive emphasis on math and reading? Have budget squeezes driven the arts out of the cur­ riculum? Or are science, technology, engineering, and math (known as the STEM subjects) being ignored A fric a n in favor of “softer” subjects? And, quite apart from A m e ric a n s striking the right balance among academic subjects, do schools place enough emphasis on cultivating students’ character and creativity, educating them about global warming, and taking steps to prevent bullying? Finally, has the country’s passion for professional sports led schools to place too much emphasis on athletics?

All these questions can provoke passionate dis­ cussion. David Drew, an education professor at Claremont Graduate University, insists that “we

T e a ch e rs

Support

H is p a n ic s

Neither Oppose

Question: Do you support or oppose federal policies that pre­ vent schools from expelling or suspending black and Hispanic students at higher rates than other students?

e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 / EDUCATI ON NEXT 17

FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of teachers with an opinion on agency fees to cover collective bargaining costs disagree with the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association on this issue.

What do the people think? To find out, we conducted the first-ever experimental inquiry into such matters. We asked a random half of our respondents to estimate (on a scale from 1 to 7) how much emphasis they think their local schools place on each of several subjects and topics. The second half was asked to use the same scale to indicate how much emphasis should be placed on these subjects.

For every subject except sports, respondents in the sec­ ond group think the subject should be given more emphasis

Teachers Reject “U n io n Shop” But Still Like their U n ion s (Figure 8)

( a ) H alf o f teachers, along with a plurality o f the public, oppose requiring teachers to pay a fee for collective bargaining services even if they do not join a union.

(P e rce n ta g e )

P u b lic T e a c h e rs

S u p p o rt N e ith e r H Oppose

(b) However, a majority of teachers still say their unions have a positive effect on schools.

P u b lic T e a c h e rs

1 P o s itiv e e ffe c t N e ith e r Hi N e g a tiv e e ffe c t

Q u e s t io n s : See complete results at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.pdf

than their counterparts in the first group perceive it is getting. In other words, the public thinks schools should place more emphasis on just about everything. Perhaps it is just human nature to say that other people should be doing more.

But if everyone wants more of almost everything, how much more varies with the subject and the population being interviewed. As illustrated in Figure 9, the public thinks much more emphasis should be placed on reading and math than do teachers and (to a lesser extent) parents. The public says

that math and reading should be given a better than 1-point increment over the 5.2-point emphasis (on the 7-point scale) it perceives these subjects are now given. But teachers think the emphasis needs to be increased by only about half a point in reading and even less in math, while parents would increase the emphasis in the two subjects by no more than two-thirds of a point.

Meanwhile, teachers would give much greater (+1.7 points) emphasis to the arts than the 3.6 level teachers estimate it is now getting. Parents would give the arts only two-thirds of a point more emphasis, and the general public would boost its emphasis by only 0.8 more points. A similar, if smaller discrepancy is observed among the three groups when they are asked about history.

On other topics, the three groups—teachers, parents, and the general public—are more like-minded. All three think that character development and creativity deserve much more emphasis. But while parents and the general public also want far more attention given to bullying pre­ vention, teachers think the matter only needs modestly more attention. On all these matters, opinion differences among the groups are marginal.

The extent to which public schools should emphasize global warming has become a political issue. In the recent debate over NCLB reauthorization, for example, Democratic senators sought to create a new program allowing districts to apply for funding to help teach about climate change. The Republican majority killed the proposal, emphasizing the degree to which the issue had become a partisan football. As Senator Lamar Alexander put it, “Just imagine what the curriculum on climate change would be if we shifted from President Obama to President Cruz and then back to President Sanders and then to President Trum p.”

18 E D U C A T I O N N E X T / W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 educationnext.org

f e a t u r e 2 015 P O L L HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST

The partisan divisions in Congress extend to the public at large. Overall, ou r results w ould suggest th at people w ant m o re em p h asis placed o n global w a rm in g —on average, about tw o -th ird s o f a p o in t m ore. This gap is substantially sm aller th an the difference betw een w hat is perceived and w hat is desired on m ost o th er topics. The m odest size of th e gap m asks su b stan tial p artisan divergence. A lthough D e m o c ra ts a n d R e p u b lic a n s re s p o n d sim ilarly w hen asked how m uch th eir local schools cu rren tly em phasize global w arm ing (3.4 and 3.6 points, respectively), D em ocrats w ant the topic to be given 1.5 points more em phasis, while R epublicans would give 0.3 p o in ts less em phasis. In sh o rt, D em ocrats an d R epublicans have sim ilar views about the extent to which schools currently em p h a­ size this issue, b u t they have very different preferences about how m uch schools should em phasize it.

To sum up, everyone wants m ore emphasis on just about everything, except athletics. The general public—as well as teachers—thinks sports should be given about a third of a point less em phasis than they believe it currently receives. Parents are less dissatisfied with the sports status quo.

The general public is especially eager for m ore em phasis on reading and m ath, while teachers see greater needs in history and the arts. Meanwhile, the attention given to global warm ing has the potential to generate as much polarization am ong ordinary citizens as it does am ong the elites in W ashington.

Readers will decide for themselves w hich results are of greatest interest. In ou r view, the poll yields four especially im portant findings:

1) Support fo r standardized testing remains strong. Both teachers and the public at large oppose the idea o f letting parents decide whether or not their children should participate

Everyone Wants More Emphasis on Everything (Figure 9)

But the public stresses math and reading, while teachers highlight history and the arts.

Difference between how much local schools should emphasize and do emphasize

(seven-point scale)

Reading

Math

A rts

H is to ry

Science

C ha ra cte r e ducation

C re a tiv ity

Global w arm ing

A th le tic s

Bullying p re ven tion

Drawing Conclusions from the 2015 Poll

Many more findings from the 2015 Education Next poll are available in the full set of results avail­ able at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll. pdf. Among them are:

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2 .0

Public ■ Teachers ■ Parents

Question (should): Using a seven point scale where 1 means “a little” and 7 means “a lot,” how much should your local schools emphasize the following.

• People think their local schools do a better job o f attending to the needs o f girls than of boys, with African Americans perceiving the largest gender differences in the way students are treated; • A clear majority think 30% o f high school instructional time should take place “inde­ pendently through or on a com puter”; and • Support for school vouchers depends heav­ ily on how a question about them is phrased.

Question (do): Using a seven point scale where 1 means “a little” and 7 means “a lot, ” how much do your local schools emphasize the following.

NOTE: D iffe re n ce s in averag e sco re s on seven p o in t scales b etw een

th e desire d em phasis a t school in local c o m m u n ity and th e p e rceive d

em phasis schools in local c o m m u n ity c u rre n tly p ro vid e . N eg ative sign

m eans less em phasis is desire d th a n th e level c u rre n tly p erceived.

For averag e scores, see e d u c a tio n n e x t.o rg /file s /2 0 1 5 e d n e x tp o ll.p d f.

e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 / EDUCATI ON NEXT 1 9

f e a t u r e 2 0 1 5 P O L L HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST

EVERYONE W ANTS MORE EMPHASIS on just about everything in school, except athletics, though the general public is especially eager for more emphasis on reading and math, while teachers see greater needs in history and the arts.

in standards-based testing. About tw o-thirds of the public supports the federal m andate for testing o f m ath and reading in grades 3 to 8 and in high school, although teachers are divided on this requirem ent.

2) Support fo r the Common Core State Standards declined a bit further in 2015, after falling sharply between 2013 and 2014. Am ong the public at large, support for the Com m on Core has fallen from a high of 65% to 53% in 2014 and to 49% in 2015. Among members of the general public (though not among teachers), those who favor the C om m on Core continue to outnum ber opponents.

3) Union agency fees are not popular. A plurality of the American public—indeed a decided majority of those with an opinion on the m atter—objects to the union practice of charging fees to nonmembers. An equally large share of teachers opposes

the agency fees imposed on them by California and 20 other states. 4) A majority o f people oppose the federal governm ent’s new

policy on school discipline. M ore than 50% disagree with the Obama adm inistration’s m andate that schools m ust not expel or suspend black and Hispanic students at higher rates than other students. Just 21% back the idea.

Michael B. Henderson is research director fo r the Public Policy Research Lab at Louisiana State University. Paul E. Peterson, editor-in chief o f Education Next, is professor and director o f the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School. M artin R. West is associate professor at the Harvard Graduate School o f Education and deputy director o f the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School.

METHODOLOGY THE RESULTS PRESENTED HERE are based upon a nationally representative, stratified sample of adults (age 18 years and older) and representative oversam­ ples of the following subgroups: teachers (693), African Americans (661), and Hispanics (734). Total sample size is 4,083. Respondents could elect to complete the survey in English or Spanish. Survey weights were employed to account for nonresponse and the oversam­ pling of specific groups.

In general, survey responses based on larger num­ bers of observations are more precise, that is, less prone to sampling variance, than those made across groups with fewer numbers of observations. As a con- seguence, answers attributed to the national popu­ lation are more precisely estimated than are those attributed to groups. The margin of error for responses given by the full sample in the EdNext survey is roughly 1.5 percentage points for guestions on which opinion is evenly split. The specific number of respondents varies from question to question, owing to item nonresponse

and to the fact that, in several instances, we randomly divided the sample into multiple groups in order to examine the effect of variations in the way questions were posed. In these cases, the online tables present separately the results for the different experimen­ tal conditions. The exact wording of each question is displayed at educationnext.org/edfacts. Percentages reported in the figures and online tables do not always add precisely to 100 as a result of rounding to the near­ est percentage point.

The survey was conducted from May 21 to June 8, 2015, by the polling firm Knowledge Networks (KN), a GfK company. KN maintains a nationally representative panel of adults, obtained via address-based sampling techniques, who agree to participate in a limited num­ ber of online surveys. Detailed information about the maintenance of the KN panel, the protocols used to administer surveys, and the comparability of online and telephone surveys is available online at knowledgenet- works.com/quality/.

20 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 6 educationnext.org

Copyright of Education Next is the property of Hoover Institution Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.