When can get my assignment back?

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

8EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2016educationnext.orgPHOTOGRAPH/AP PHOTO;ROBIN ZIELINSKI THE 2015 E D N E X T PO LL 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 WINTER 2016 / EDUCATION NEXT 9 Testing and Accountability In early 2015, as C ongress began rew riting the N o Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), n o issue loom ed larger th a n the use o f stu d en t testing to m easure the p erfo rm an c e o f schools and teachers. M edia reports featured teachers decrying a scourge o f Support for Testing, Opposition to Opt Out (Figure 1) ( a ) A m o n g th e p u b lic a n d p a ren ts, m o re th a n tw o -th ird s su p p o r t a fe d e r a l r e q u ir e m e n t f o r a n n u a l testing, w hile o p in io n a m o n g teachers is e ven ly split.

( P e r c e n t a g e ) Public P a re n ts Teachers ( b ) A m a jo r ity o f th e p u b lic, p a re n ts, a n d teachers oppose the o p t- o u t m o v e m e n t.

Public P a re n ts Teachers S u p p o r t N e it h e r H O p p o se Q u e s tio n (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 u e s tio n (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, h u n d re d s o f th o u san d s o f paren ts had chosen to have th eir children “op t o u t” o f state tests, garnering the rousing approval o f the teachers unions. O u t o n the h u s ­ tings, Republican presidential candidates escalated their critique o f the C o m m o n Core. T he m o v em en t to p u t “the standardized testing m achine in reverse,” in the w ords o f New York m ayor Bill de Blasio, seemed to have legs.

It is p erhaps surprising, then, th a t in July a bipartisan Senate s u p e rm a jo rity o f 8 1 -1 7 passed a revision o f NCLB th a t keeps the federal re q u ir e m e n t th a t all stu d en ts be tested in m a th a n d re ad in g in grades 3 to 8 an d again in high school. H as the u p p e r c h a m b e r ignored th e p eo p le’s will? Or, is the p u b lic’s ap p e tite for the in f o r m a tio n p ro v id e d by re g u la r s tu d e n t te stin g b ro a d e r a n d m o re ro b u s t th a n th e m ed ia coverage w ould indicate?

O u r po llin g suggests th e la tte r (see F igure 1). A solid 67% o f m e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic say th e y s u p ­ p o r t c o n tin u in g th e fe deral re q u ir e m e n t fo r a n n u a l te stin g , w hile ju s t 21% o p p o se th e idea, w ith th e r e m a in d e r ta k in g a n e u tra l p o sitio n . P a re n ta l s u p ­ p o r t fo r te stin g (66%) is a b o u t as h ig h as th a t o f the p u b lic as a w hole. T ea ch ers are div id ed d o w n the m id d le , w ith 47% saying yes a n d 46% saying n o to c o n tin u in g th e policy.

In 2012, th e last tim e we asked this question, 63% o f the public said th e y s u p p o rte d a n n u a l testing, an d o n ly 12% o p p o sed . In o th e r w o rd s, th e shares o f su p p o rte rs a n d o p p o n e n ts are b o th slightly h igher in 2015 th a n th e y w ere th re e years ago, w ith th e share tak in g a n e u tra l p o s itio n declining fro m 25% to 13%. This shift could suggest th a t public o p in io n has crystallized in th e in te rv e n in g years (but it m ay also reflect th e fact th a t o u r survey p re se n te d the n e u tra l re sponse o p tio n m o re p ro m in e n tly in 2012).

E ith er way, the backlash against sta n d ard iz ed testing appears less p o te n t th a n o p p o n e n ts claim.

Opting out. The House o f Representatives also passed a re au th o rizatio n bill re q u irin g th a t states m ain tain annual testing regimes, b u t its version differs from the Senate’s in one key respect: it allows parents to “opt out” o f state tests, despite the fact that the federal govern­ m en t does n o t require that the tests be used to evaluate the perform ance o f individual students. The difference between the two bills looms large, because one cannot assess school perform ance accurately unless nearly all students participate in the testing process.

W h a t do people th in k o f the o p t-o u t movement?

To find out, we asked w hether they thought parents should be able to decide w hether or n o t their children take annual state tests. O u r results reveal little public sympathy for giving parents this option (see Figure 1).

10 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2016educationnext.org 2 0 1 5 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% o f m em bers o f the public like the idea o f letting parents decide w hether their children are tested, while 59% oppose it.

A m ong 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 H ouse negotiators tu rn to ironing o u t differences between their bills, the Senate team can argue th at its approach to “opt o u t” (which does n o t require states to offer that option) is backed by strong m ajorities o f the public an d o f teachers.

Accountability: who should hold the reins?

A n o t h e r f a u lt lin e in t h e d e b a te o v e r th e p r o p o s e d fe d e ra l e d u c a tio n law lies b e tw e e n C o n g re ss a n d th e executive b ra n c h . As o f late July, b o th th e Senate an d the H ouse bills defer to th e states o n th e q u e stio n o f h o w to design th e ir s c h o o l a c c o u n ta b ility p ro g r a m s . T h e O b a m a a d m in is tr a tio n , b ac k ed by civil rig h ts a n d b u s i­ ness g ro u p s, w a n ts th e feds to have m o re voice in d e fin in g w h a t c o n s titu te s a “failing sc h o o l” a n d in p ro p o s in g re m e d ies. B ut th e Senate has nixed th e so-called M u rp h y A m e n d m e n t, w hich w o u ld re q u ire states to iden tify a n d in terv e n e in t h e ir lo w e s t-p e rfo rm in g schools; h ig h schools w ith few er th a n 67% o n - tim e g ra d u ates; a n d a n y sc h o o l w h e re d is a d v a n ta g e d o r d isa b le d s tu d e n ts fall s h o r t o f s ta n d a r d iz e d test goals for tw o co n se cu tiv e years.

W h e re do p eo p le com e do w n o n th is debate?

To find o u t, we asked o u r re s p o n d e n ts w hich level o f g o v e r n m e n t (federal, state, o r local) s h o u ld play the largest role in th re e key aspects o f th e design o f school ac co u n tab ility program s:

• Setting education standards for what students should know; • Deciding w hether o r n o t a school is failing; and • Deciding ho w to fix fading schools.the local g o v e rn m e n t sh o u ld play th is role (see Figure 2). But people clearly w a n t the feds in the b ack seat w h e n it com es to id en tifying a n d im p ro v in g failing schools. O n ly 18% o f re sp o n d e n ts say th a t the federal g o v e rn m e n t sh ould play the largest role in identifying fading schools, an d 20% say it should do so w h e n it com es to fixing them . T h e percentages o f those w ho say the states should have the lead role in these areas are 50 a n d 51, respectively.

Public Envisions Small Federal Role in Fixing Failing Schools (F ig u re 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 fix in g them.

W ho s h o u ld p la y t h e b ig g e s t ro le in .

6 0 Setting educational standards?Deciding whether or not a school is failing?

Federal government ■ State governmentDeciding how to fix failing schools?

! Local government W h e n it com es to sta n d a rd setting, m em b ers o f th e public are evenly divided over w h e th e r the federal g o v e rn m e n t o r the states should be in the d riv e r’s seat: 43% say th e states, an d 41% say the federal g o v e rn m e n t, while ju s t 15% suggest th atQ u e s tio n s : Based on your best guess, what level o f government should play the biggest role in each o f the following:

1) Setting educational standards fo r what students should know.

2 ) Deciding whether or not a school is failing.

3) Deciding how to f i x failing schools.

educationnext.org WINTER 2016/ EDUCATION NEXT 11 !" #$" #$" % " &'" #(" ) * + , - * ) O p p o s itio n to C o m m o n Core C o n tin u e s to G row a m o n g B o th Teachers an d G eneral P u b lic (Figure 3) T hirty-five percent o f the p u b lic now expresses opposition to the C om m on Core, up fr o m 26 percent in 2014. Democrats rem ain more supportive o f C om m on Core than Republicans are.

(Percentage) 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 Public Teachers The Common Core W h ile s u p p o r t fo r s ta n d a r d iz e d t e s t ­ in g re m a in s s tro n g , th e d e b a te over th e C o m m o n C ore State S ta n d ard s co n tin u es to d iv id e b o th te a c h e rs a n d th e g eneral p u b lic (see Figure 3). S u p p o rt fo r using th e C o m m o n Core, w hich fell fro m 65% in 2013 to 53% in 2014, has now slipped slightly fu rth e r, to 49%. Still, only 35% o f m em b ers o f th e p u b lic express o p p o sitio n to u sin g the stan d ard s, w ith the re m a in in g 16% u n d ec id e d . D e m o c rats (57%) re m a in m u c h m o r e s u p p o rtiv e o f th e O b a m a - b acked policy th a n R epublicans are (37%).

T h e latest decline in s u p p o rt for these s ta n d a r d s do es n o t arise sim p ly fro m a politically ta in te d C o m m o n C ore “b r a n d .” A m ong a second group o f respondents who answ ered th e sam e q u estio n b u t w ith o u t the p h ra se “C o m m o n C o re,” s u p p o rt for the use o f shared standards across the states slid fro m 68% in 2014 to 54% in 2015.

It is interesting to note that this year’s dif­ ference between those favoring the Com m onDemocrats S u p p o r tN e it h e r H O pp o se Q u e s tio n : As you may know, in the last fe w 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 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2016e d u c a t io n n e x t . o r g 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.

W hy? It m ay be th a t the debate over n ational standards has been so energetic over the past year that the public no w is m ore aware o f the issue, w hether o r n o t the phrase “C o m m o n Core” is m entioned.

A th ir d g ro u p o f re sp o n d e n ts were n o t to ld th e sta n d a rd s w o u ld be “used to h o ld p u b lic schools ac co u n tab le for th e ir p e rfo rm a n c e .” W ith o u t the ac countability p h ra se in the qu es­ tion, s u p p o rt for th e C o m m o n C ore falls to ju st 39%, w ith 37% opposed. T h e p ro p o r tio n o f people w ith n o o p in io n increases fro m 16% to 23%.

T e a c h e r s u p p o r t is also sliding. In 2013, 76% o f teachers s u p p o rte d th e C o m m o n C o re —giving it a far greater approval r a tin g t h a n d id th e g e n e ra l p u b lic. B ut te a c h e r a p p ro v a l co llap se d to 46% in 2014 a n d h as n o w fallen to ju s t 40%.

M eanw hile, th e share o f teachers expressing o p p o sitio n has risen to 50%, leaving ju s t 10% u n d ec id e d . U nlike th e public at large, teachers are more likely to express s u p p o rt fo r the C o m m o n C ore w hen the survey questio n does n o t include the ac co u n tab ility phrase. T hey divide evenly w h e n th e questio n o m its th a t ph ra se, w ith 44% in s u p p o rt a n d 43% opposed.

T h e new s fo r p ro p o n e n ts o f th e C o m m o n C ore is n o t all bad. T hose w h o favor th e C o m m o n C ore c o n tin u e to o u t ­ n u m b e r o p p o n e n ts, by 14 percen tag e p o in ts. Also, the rate o f decline in s u p p o rt slow ed m a rk e d ly b etw een 2014 a n d 2015, p e rh a p s suggesting th a t o p in io n o n th e issue has b eg u n to stabilize. M o re o v er, th e b ro a d e r p u b lic ’s o p p o sitio n to the C o m m o n C o re app e ars to re st o n a shallow factual f o u n d a ­ tio n . A sked w h e th e r o r n o t th e C o m m o n C ore is being used in th e ir local school d istrict, fully 58% o f th e m em b ers o f the p u b lic a d m it th a t th e y do n o t know . O n ly 44% o f re sid e n ts in states th a t have a d o p te d th e C o m m o n C ore realize th a t the sta n d a rd s are being used in th e ir school districts; a n d p e rh a p s m o re startlin g , 24% o f re sid e n ts in states th a t do n o t have the C o m m o n C ore believe th e ir districts are using th e stan d ard s.

Yet am o n g the 34% o f the public w ho re p o rt th a t the sta n ­ dards are being used in th eir district, re sp ondents w ho believe the standards have had a negative effect on schools (51%) exceed those w ho th in k th ey have h a d a positive effect (28%). Twenty- on e p ercent give a n eu tra l response. Teachers a n d parents, who claim greater knowledge o f w hether the standards are in use, are ju st as negative in th eir assessment o f the impact. Seventy-three p e rc e n t o f teachers re p o rt th a t the standards are being used inth eir district, w ith 49% o f th a t g ro u p rep o rtin g negative effects and 32% reporting positive effects. A m ong parents, 49% say that the standards are being used in their district, w ith 53% reporting negative effects an d ju st 28% rep o rtin g positive effects.

In o th e r w ords, teachers a n d p a re n ts w h o say th e ir d istrict is im p le m e n tin g the stan d ard s are th e ones m o st likely to offer a critical assessm ent o f th e ir im pact. T h a t finding sh ould be o f c o n c ern to all th o se h o p in g to see th e C o m m o n C ore succeed.

Changes in Support for School Reform In re tro sp e c t it looks as if 2014, an election year th a t swept R epublicans in to po w e r in C ongress a n d m a n y state capitals, p ro p e lle d school re fo rm to a h ig h -w a te r m a rk th a t has pro v e n difficult to sustain. For th re e years in a ro w now , we have asked eith er id en tical o r q u ite sim ilar q u estio n s o n several issues. O n a su rp risin g n u m b e r o f th em , s u p p o rt fo r policy ch anges h as slip p ed in 2015 fro m p eaks a tta in e d in 2014, th o u g h so m etim es th e fall is to a level th a t re m a in s above the on e re ach e d in 2013. N o n e o f th e changes are large, an d som e o f th e shifts fall s h o rt o f statistical significance, leaving it u n c le a r as to w h e th e r a tru e change h as tak en place. But co n sid e r th e overall p a tte r n o f responses across m a jo r p arts o f th e school re fo rm ag enda (see F igure 4):

• Charter schools. S upport for charter schools has dipped from a high o f5 4 % in 2 0 1 4 to 5 1 % in 2 0 1 5 ,th e sa m e level as in 2013. However, the percentage supporting charters remains twice th at o f the 27% expressing opposition.

• Tax credits fo r scholarships f o r low-income students. Support for a tax credit for businesses an d individuals who contribute to private-school scholarships for low-income families has also fallen, to 55% from 60% in 2014. (This question was n o t asked in 2013.) • Vouchers f o r low -incom e students. B acking fo r th e use o f “g o v e r n m e n t fu n d s to p a y th e t u i ti o n o f lo w -in c o m e stu d e n ts w ho choose to a tte n d p riv ate sch o o ls” h a s fallen stead ily —fro m 41% to 37% b etw e en 2013 a n d 2014, w ith a f u r th e r (th o u g h n o t statistically significant) d ro p to ju st 34% in 2015.

• Universal vouchers. P ublic e n th u s ia s m fo r u n iv ersa l v o uchers w ith o u t re gard to in co m e h as slipped fro m 50% in 2014 to 46% in 2015, ju s t a b it h ig h e r th a n th e 44% level re p o rte d in 2013. (How ever, these changes are n o t educationnext.org WINTER 2016/ EDUCATION NEXT 13 ! "# $ M erit pay fo r teachers. People are no t fully embracing policy reforms affecting teachers. Between 2014 and 2015, public support for m erit pay has slid from 57% to 51%, about the same as in 2013, when m erit pay garnered sup­ p o rt from 49% of the population. Even so, just 34% of the population opposes m erit pay, with the rem ainder 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 m uch into shifts in opinion that are only m odestly larger th an w hat a statistical aberration m ight account fo r—and in some cases, no t even th a t big.

Perhaps the higher levels of support we observed in 2014 reflected tem porary shocks to public opinion stemming from Public Support for School Reform Slips ( F i g u r e 4 ) Small decline in support fo r charters, tax credits, merit pay, and ending tenureevents such as W isconsin governor Scott W alker’s recall election and the lan d m ark Vergara v. California decision th a t struck down California’s teacher evaluation and tenure laws, both o f which took place while our survey was in the field. But school reform ers m ight take the 2015 findings as a red light on the dashboard, a w arning th a t 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 l i c in f a v o r o f . . .

Common C ore* C h a rte rs * Tax c re d its ** Vouchers to low-income families Universal vouchersm warn M e rit p a y ** Ending t e n u r e * *m 10 2 0 1 42 03 0 2 0 1 54 0 5 0 * Change significant at 90 percent confidence level * * Change significant at 95 percent confidence level Q u e s t i o n s : See complete results at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.pdfExpenditures and Salaries In its 2016 budget, the O bam a adm inistration has p r o ­ posed a new billion-dollar federal program , Teaching for Tom orrow, which requests an additional $1 billion in federal funding for services to children from low-income families. It also calls for m ore m oney for English language acquisition program s, civil rights enforcem ent, 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.

C onsistent with these reports, the H ouse of Representatives has passed a budget resolution th a t calls for a m ore than 8% cut in federal spending.

M issing from virtually all the m edia coverage o f th ese d e v e lo p m en ts are answers to a few basic questions: How m uch do we currently spend per pupil?

How m uch does the federal governm ent 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 e ric a n s g re a tly u n d e r e s t im a t e the a m ount of m oney spent on schools.

60 A ccording to the federal g o v e rn m e n t’s N ational C enter 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 th a n half actual spending levels.

O ur survey found that people are often willing to alter their thinking when given additional information. Before asking our respondents if they tho u g h t spending in th e ir d istric ts should be increased, we told half o f them w hat the c u rre n t spend­ ing levels were. The other h a lf were left 155 50 |4 6 57 151 H 5 7 1 4 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2016educationnext.org 2 015 P O L L HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST S C H O O L R E F O R M E R S m ight take the 2015 findings as a red light on the dashboard, a w arning th a t e ffo rts to a lte r the public's th in kin g on education policy may be fa lte rin g .

uninform ed. Among those not informed, 58% favor increases in spending. That support drops to 42% when people are told the actual level o f expenditures (after having provided th eir own estimate).

Respondents who m ost seriously underestim ate spend­ ing levels are the ones m ost likely to change their m inds when told the facts. W hen those who underestim ate school expenditures by $5,000 or less are told real spending levels, their support for increased spending drops by 12 percentage points. A m ong those who underestim ate expenditures by more than $5,000, the downw ard opinion shift, upon being inform ed o f real levels, is 20 percentage points. On the other h a nd, those who overestimate expenditures barely budge in th eir opinions when told their districts spend less than they thought.

Sources o f funding: who pays what? Am ericans are also poorly inform ed about the sources o f funding for the n a tio n ’s schools. We asked half of our respondents, ra n d o m ly selected, to estim ate “w hat percentage of funding for schools c urrently 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 m ost recent available) indicate that the actual levels are 10% for the federal governm ent, 45% for state governm ents, and 45% for local governments. But people greatly overstate the federal share, estim ating it as 32% (see Figure 5).

In tu rn , they believe th a t state and local governm ents con trib u te 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 thenasked whether taxes should be raised to fund increases.

In the first group, 63% o f 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% o f 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 h a rd to say w hether the public really wants a salary increase for teachers or not. It all depends on how m uch m em bers o f the public know and w hether they are keeping in m ind that the increm ent 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 fu n d in g than it actually does.

Federal gove rn m en t HK S tate gove rn m en t ■ Local governm ent Q u e s tio n , perceived: Based on your best guess, what percent o f funding for schools currently comes from each level o f government?

Q u e s tio n , desired: What percent of funding for schools should come from each level of government?

SOURCE: 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 s c h o o l y e a r. N a t io n a l C e n t e r fo r E d u c a t i o n S t a ti s t i c s e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g WINTER 2016/ EDUCATION NEXT 15 In 2014 the U.S. D e p a rtm e n t o f E du c a tio n and the Departm ent 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 o f 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 o f 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 departm ents’ position by holding that statistical evidence of “disparate im pact” across racial groups could indeed be used as evidence that a government policy was discriminatory.

W hat do m em bers o f the public—and what do teachers— think of federally m andated “no-disparate-im pact” disciplin­ ary policies? And what do they th in k of such policies if set by local school districts? To find out, we split our sample into two random ly selected groups (see Figure 7). The first was asked w hether it supported or opposed “federal policies th a t prev en t schools from expelling or suspending black and Hispanic students at higher rates th an other students.” Fifty-one percent o f 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 o f teacher salaries, support fo r increasing salaries declines. Support drops even further when the public is reminded that an increase would be fu n d e d by tax dollars.

P u b lic s u p p o r t fo r in c re a s in g t e a c h e r s a la rie s Uninformed Informed P u b lic s u p p o rt fo r in c re a s in g t a x e s to fu n d t e a c h e r s a la rie s Uninformed In fo rm e d______________ 6 0 70the same am ong the second group, who was asked about school district policies of the same sort. By a large m argin, the public opposes “no-disparate im pact” policies, regardless of w hether the federal governm ent or the local school district form ulates 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 im pact” 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.

102 0 3 0 4 0 50 Percentage Q u e s tio n s : See complete results at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.pdfU n ion Fees for N o n u n io n Teachers In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme C ourt 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 th at 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 m aintains, 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.

O ur data indicate that a plurality of people— indeed a decided m ajority o f those w ith an opinion on the m atte r—agree with Friedrichs 1 6EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2016educationnext.org 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 ig u re 7) H a lf o f the public a n d over h a lf o f teachers oppose policies requiring sim ilar suspension rates across racial groups.

A higher level o f support f o r these policies is observed am ong A frican A m ericans a n d 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 f r i c a n in favor of “softer” subjects? And, quite apart from A m e r ic 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 C larem ont Graduate University, insists that “weT e a c h e r s SupportH 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 WINTER 2016/ EDUCATION NEXT 17 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.

W hat 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 m uch 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 S h o p ” B u t Still Like th eir U n io n s (Figure 8) ( a ) H a lf o f teachers, along with a plurality o f the public, oppose requiring teachers to pay a fee fo r collective bargaining services even i f they do not join a union.

( P e r c e n t a g e ) P u b l i c T e a c h e r s S u p p o r t N e it h e r H O p p o se (b) However, a majority o f teachers still say their unions have a positive effect on schools.

P u b l i c T e a c h e r s 1 P o s it iv e e f f e c t N e it h e r Hi N e g a tiv e e f f e c t Q u e s t i o n s : See complete results at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.pdfthan 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 m ore o f almost everything, how much m ore varies with the subject and the population being interviewed. As illustrated in Figure 9, the public thinks much m ore emphasis should be placed on reading and m ath than do teachers and (to a lesser extent) parents. The public says that m ath and reading should be given a better than 1-point increm ent 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 o f 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 m ore 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 th in k that character development and creativity deserve m uch m ore emphasis. But while parents and the general public also want far more attention given to bullying pre­ vention, teachers think the m atter 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 w arm ing has become a political issue. In the recent debate over NCLB reauthorization, for example, Dem ocratic senators sought to create a new program allowing districts to apply for funding to help teach about climate change. The Republican m ajority killed the proposal, em phasizing the degree to w hich the issue had become a partisan football. As Senator Lamar Alexander pu t it, “Just imagine w hat the curriculum on climate change would be if we shifted from President O bam a to President Cruz and then back to President Sanders and then to President T ru m p .” 18 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2016educationnext.org 2 0 1 5 P O L L HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST T h e p a r tis a n d iv isio n s in C o n g ress e x te n d to th e p u b lic at large. O verall, o u r re su lts w o u ld suggest th a t p e o p le w a n t m o r e e m p h a s is p la c e d o n g lo b al w a r m in g —o n ave rag e , a b o u t tw o - th ir d s o f a p o in t m o re. T his gap is s u b sta n tia lly sm aller th a n th e diffe ren c e b etw e en w h a t is perceiv ed a n d w h a t is d e sire d o n m o s t o th e r to pics. T h e m o d e s t size o f th e gap m ask s s u b s ta n tia l p a r tis a n div erg e n ce. A lth o u g h D e m o c r a t s a n d R e p u b l i c a n s r e s p o n d s im ila rly w h e n asked h o w m u c h th e ir local schools c u r r e n tly em p h a siz e global w a rm in g (3.4 a n d 3.6 p o in ts , respectively), D e m o c ra ts w a n t th e to p ic to be given 1.5 p o in ts more e m p h asis, w hile R e p u b lican s w o u ld give 0.3 p o in ts less e m p h a s is . In s h o r t, D e m o c ra ts a n d R e p u b lic a n s h av e s im ila r view s a b o u t th e e x te n t to w h ich schools c u r re n tly e m p h a ­ size th is issue, b u t th e y have very d iffe ren t p re fe re n c e s a b o u t h o w m u c h schools sh ould e m p h a siz e it.

To sum up, everyone w ants m o re em phasis on ju st a b o u t everything, except athletics. The g en e ral p u b lic —as well as te a c h e rs —th in k s sports sh ould be given ab o u t a th ird o f a po in t less em p h asis th a n th e y believe it c u rre n tly receives. Parents are less dissatisfied w ith the sports status quo.

T h e general public is especially eager for m o re em p h asis o n re a d in g a n d m a th , while teachers see greater needs in h isto ry an d the arts. M eanwhile, the atten tio n given to global w a rm in g has the potential to generate as m uch p olarization am o n g o rd in a ry citizens as it does am o n g the elites in W ashington.R eaders will decide for them selves w h ich re su lts are o f g reatest interest. In o u r view, the poll yields fo u r especially im p o rta n t findings:

1) Support f o r sta n d ardized testing rem ains strong. Both teac h ers a n d th e public at large o p p o se th e idea o f letting parents decide w hether o r n o t th eir children should participate Everyone Wants More Emphasis on Everything (Figure 9) B u t the p u b lic stresses m ath a n d reading, while teachers highlight history a n d the arts.

Difference between how much local schools sh o u ld emphasize and do emphasize (seven-point scale) R eading M ath A r t s H is to r y S cie nce C h a ra c te r e d u c a tio n C r e a t iv ity Global w a rm in g A t h le t ic s B u lly in g p r e v e n tio n Drawing Conclusions from the 2015 Poll M any m ore findings from the 2015 Education N ext poll are available in the full set o f results avail­ able at educationnext.org/files/2015ednextpoll.

pdf. A m ong th em are:0 .0 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2 .0 P u b lic ■ Teachers ■ P a re n ts Q uestion (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 th in k their local schools do a better job o f atten d in g to the needs o f girls th a n o f boys, w ith A frican A m ericans perceiving the largest gen d e r differences in the way stu d en ts are treated; • A clear m ajority th in k 30% o f high school in stru c tio n a l tim e should take place “in d e ­ p e n d e n tly th ro u g h o r o n a c o m p u te r”; and • Support for school vouchers depends heav­ ily on how a question about them is phrased.Q uestion (do): Using a seven p oint scale where 1 means “a little” and 7 means “a lot, ” how much do your local schools emphasize the following.

NOTE: D iffe r e n c e s in a v e ra g e s c o re s on s e v e n p o in t s c a le s b e tw e e n t h e d e s ire d e m p h a s is a t s c h o o l in lo c a l c o m m u n ity and th e p e r c e iv e d e m p h a s is s c h o o ls in lo c a l c o m m u n ity c u r r e n t l y p ro v id e . N e g a tiv e sig n m e a n s less e m p h a s is is d e s ire d th a n th e le v e l c u r r e n t l y p e r c e iv e d .

F or a v e ra g e s c o re s , see e d u c a t io n n e x t . o r g / f ile s / 2 0 1 5 e d n e x t p o ll. p d f .

e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g WINTER 2016/ EDUCATION NEXT 1 9 2 0 1 5 P O L L HENDERSON, PETERSON, & WEST E V E R Y O N E W A N T S MORE E M P H A S IS 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 sta n d a rd s-b a se d testing. A b o u t tw o -th ird s o f the p u b lic su p p o rts th e federal m a n d a te fo r testing o f m a th a n d reading in grades 3 to 8 a n d in high school, alth o u g h teac h ers are divided o n this re q u irem en t.

2) Support f o r the C om m on Core State Standards declined a bit fu r th e r in 2015, after fa llin g sharply between 2013 and 2014. A m o n g the public at large, s u p p o rt for the C o m m o n Core has fallen from a high o f 65% to 53% in 2014 an d to 49% in 2015. A m ong m em bers o f the general public (though n o t am ong teachers), those who favor the C o m m o n Core continue to o u tn u m b e r opponents.

3) Union agency fees are not popular. A plurality o f the American public—indeed a decided majority o f those w ith an opinion on the m atter—objects to the u nion practice o f charging fees to nonm em bers. A n equally large share o f teachers opposesthe agency fees imposed on them by California and 20 other states.

4) A m ajority o f people oppose the fed era l g o v e rn m e n t’s new policy on school discipline. M ore th a n 50% disagree w ith the O b a m a a d m in is tr a tio n ’s m a n d a te th a t schools m u st n o t expel or su sp en d black a n d H isp an ic stu d e n ts at h ig h er rates th a n o th e r stu d en ts. Just 21% b ac k th e idea.

M ichael B. Henderson is research director f o r the Public Policy Research Lab a t Louisiana State University. Paul E.

Peterson, editor-in c h ie f o f E d u ca tio n Next, is professor and director o f the Program on E ducation Policy a n d Governance a t the H arvard K ennedy School. M a rtin R. W est is associate professor a t the H arvard Graduate School o f Education and deputy director o f the Program on Education Policy and Governance a t the H arvard K ennedy 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 nonresponseand 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 2016educationnext.org Copyright ofEducation Nextisthe property ofHoover Institution Pressanditscontent may not becopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's express writtenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for individual use.