Polling Together (2013)

44
The Politics of School Choice International Academic Conference on School Choice and Education Reform January 18, 2013 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Paul DiPerna Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice [email protected] Polling Together

Transcript of Polling Together (2013)

Page 1: Polling Together (2013)

The Politics of School Choice

International Academic Conference on School Choice and Education Reform

January 18, 2013Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Paul DiPernaFriedman Foundation for Educational Choice

[email protected]

Polling Together

Page 2: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Questions• How popular or unpopular are private school

vouchers (in general) in the U.S.?

• What role does question wording play in public support of private school choice? How do you word the voucher question in your surveys and why do you employ that particular wording?

• Is the term “opportunity scholarships” more popular than calling them “school vouchers”?

• Wrt demographics and states, what does the range of support/opposition look like for vouchers?

Page 3: Polling Together (2013)

National Surveys on

School Choice Topics

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 4: Polling Together (2013)

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

PDK/Gallup (1970 to 2012)Public Support for Vouchers

Page 5: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Terry Moe (1995/2001)

• Low awareness and information ( ~ 2:1)• National, 60% vs. 32% = + 28 • Parents, 68% vs. 24% = + 44• African Americans, 73% vs. 18% = + 55• Latinos, 71% vs. 18% = + 53

Public Agenda (1999)

• National, 57% vs. 36% = + 21 Intensity = 29% vs. 23% = + 6

• Parents, 68% vs. 27% = + 41Intensity = 40% vs. 17% = + 23

Page 6: Polling Together (2013)

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

EdNext-PEPG/KN (2007 to 2012)Public Support for Low-Income Vouchers

Page 7: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 8: Polling Together (2013)

Wording considerations…

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 9: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Moe’s recommendations for item construction (p. 200)

• vouchers would be available to parents generally, not just to existing private school parents

• vouchers would enable parents to choose among public, parochial, and private options in deciding where their children go to school

• vouchers would be financed by the government and thus paid for out of taxes

Page 10: Polling Together (2013)

A school voucher system allows parents the option of sending their child to the school of their choice, whether that school is public or private, including both religious and non-religious schools. If this policy were adopted, tax dollars currently allocated to a school district would be allocated to parents in the form of a “school voucher” to pay partial or full tuition for their child’s school. In general, do you favor or oppose a school voucher system?

Page 11: Polling Together (2013)

Wording experiment…

“school vouchers” or

“opportunity scholarships”

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 12: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 13: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 14: Polling Together (2013)

Demographic

Snapshots

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 15: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 16: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 17: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 18: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 19: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.org

Page 20: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

State Snapshots

(2010 to 2012)

Page 21: Polling Together (2013)

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 22: Polling Together (2013)

What do voters say

about school vouchers?

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 23: Polling Together (2013)

School Vouchers, Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score

State Favor OpposeRank % %

1 Mississippi 74 20 + 54 + 33 603 Jul/10

2 New Jersey 69 26 + 43 + 20 602 Jul/10

3 Indiana 66 25 + 41 + 24 1,017 Nov/10

4 New York 66 26 + 40 + 26 603 Jul/10

5 Alaska 64 29 + 35 + 16 1,006 Sep/11

6 Louisiana 63 29 + 34 + 21 802 Feb/12

7 Alabama 62 28 + 34 + 16 601 Jul/10

8 New Mexico 62 31 + 31 + 15 808 Sep/11

9 Arkansas 60 30 + 30 + 21 603 Jul/10

10 Tennessee 59 31 + 28 + 11 606 Feb/12

11 North Carolina 57 32 + 25 + 14 601 Jun/12

12 Kansas 57 36 + 21 + 14 602 Jul/10

13 Idaho 56 35 + 21 + 9 1,202 Nov/11

14 Washington 55 35 + 20 + 4 602 Feb/12

15 Montana 52 39 + 13 + 4 604 Apr/12

Mo/YrIntensity

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

State Net N=

Page 24: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Takeaways

• Pluralities and majorities support vouchers. … especially among Parents, African Americans,

Latinos; 18-29/30-54 groups; urban and rural areas; Republicans; (and so far in) MS, NJ, IN, NY.

• Decisions on core concepts and definition are key for voucher item construction… as much as specific choice of words… We define universal vouchers per Friedman (1955) and per Moe’s recommendations (2001).

• In controlled context (survey), “opportunity scholarships” garner more support/less resistance than “school vouchers”… but political arena requires defining the terms clearly and linking early as possible.

Page 25: Polling Together (2013)

Thank You

Questions, Comments, or Suggestions?

Contact: Paul DiPerna, [email protected]

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 26: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 27: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 28: Polling Together (2013)

How much do voters know about

charter schools and vouchers?

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 29: Polling Together (2013)

Familiarity with Charter Schools and VouchersBy State Survey

Charter Schools School Vouchers% Familiar % Familiar

Alabama 31 33 601 Jul/10

Alaska 52 38 1,006 Sep/11

Arkansas 37 41 603 Jul/10

Idaho 57 32 1,202 Nov/11

Indiana 29 32 1,017 Nov/10

Kansas 39 43 602 Jul/10

Louisiana 37 38 802 Feb/12

Mississippi 31 41 603 Jul/10

Montana 30 37 604 Apr/12

New Jersey 54 50 602 Jul/10

New Mexico 44 40 808 Sep/11

New York 53 42 603 Jul/10

North Carolina 46 36 601 Jun/12

Tennessee 33 38 606 Feb/12

Washington 46 35 602 Feb/12

State N= Mo/Yr

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

Page 30: Polling Together (2013)

What do voters say

about charter schools?

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 31: Polling Together (2013)

Charter Schools, Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score

State Favor OpposeRank % %

1 Alaska 72 11 + 61 + 30 490 Sep/11

2 New Mexico 72 18 + 54 + 23 808 Sep/11

3 Idaho 69 17 + 52 + 25 1,202 Nov/11

4 New Jersey 70 19 + 51 + 19 602 Jul/10

5 North Carolina 65 15 + 50 + 24 601 Jun/12

6 Indiana 66 17 + 49 + 20 1,017 Nov/10

7 New York 68 20 + 48 + 25 603 Jul/10

8 Tennessee 61 18 + 43 + 14 606 Feb/12

9 Kansas 62 20 + 42 + 19 602 Jul/10

10 Mississippi 62 20 + 42 + 16 603 Jul/10

11 Louisiana 61 22 + 39 + 19 802 Feb/12

12 Arkansas 60 23 + 37 + 16 603 Jul/10

13 Washington 60 23 + 37 + 14 602 Feb/12

14 Alabama 58 21 + 37 + 14 601 Jul/10

15 Montana 54 21 + 33 +11 604 Apr/12

Mo/YrIntensity

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

State Net N=

Page 32: Polling Together (2013)

What type of school is

first preference?

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 33: Polling Together (2013)

School Type PreferencesBy State Survey

RegularPublic School

Alabama 38 40 8 11 601 Jul/10

Alaska 39 30 15 11 1,006 Sep/11

Arkansas 37 33 12 14 603 Jul/10

Idaho 38 27 22 8 1,202 Nov/11

Indiana 38 41 10 7 1,017 Nov/10

Kansas 40 35 13 9 602 Jul/10

Louisiana 31 49 10 8 802 Feb/12

Mississippi 43 38 8 10 603 Jul/10

Montana 50 28 9 10 604 Apr/12

New Jersey 40 39 12 7 602 Jul/10

New Mexico 37 36 15 9 808 Sep/11

New York 29 49 14 7 603 Jul/10

North Carolina 34 39 15 11 601 Jun/12

Tennessee 40 40 9 8 606 Feb/12

Washington 40 35 14 7 602 Feb/12

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

State N= Mo/YrPrivate School Charter School Homeschool

Page 34: Polling Together (2013)

What do voters say

about tax-credit scholarships?

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 35: Polling Together (2013)

Tax-Credit Scholarships, Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score

State Favor OpposeRank % %

1 New York 70 22 + 48 + 23 603 Jul/10

2 New Jersey 69 23 + 46 + 22 602 Jul/10

3 Alaska 64 18 + 46 + 24 490 Sep/11

4 Arkansas 65 24 + 41 + 22 603 Jul/10

5 Mississippi 65 24 + 41 + 20 603 Jul/10

6 Indiana 63 22 + 41 + 15 1,017 Nov/10

7 Idaho 60 21 + 39 + 13 1,202 Nov/11

8 North Carolina 63 25 + 38 + 12 302 Jun/12

9 New Mexico 62 26 + 36 + 8 388 Sep/11

10 Alabama 60 25 + 35 + 15 601 Jul/10

11 Tennessee 61 26 + 35 + 14 303 Feb/12

12 Washington 59 25 + 34 + 10 301 Feb/12

13 Montana 59 28 + 31 + 13 302 Apr/12

14 Kansas 56 29 + 27 + 11 602 Jul/10

Mo/YrIntensity

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

State Net N=

Page 36: Polling Together (2013)

What do voters say about

education savings accounts?

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 37: Polling Together (2013)

Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score

State Favor OpposeRank % %

1 Alaska 61 27 + 34 + 18 1,006 Sep/11

2 North Carolina 56 28 + 28 + 18 302 Jun/12

3 Washington 57 31 + 26 + 7 602 Feb/12

4 Tennessee 56 31 + 25 + 12 606 Feb/12

5 Montana 55 31 + 24 + 7 604 Apr/12

6 New Mexico 57 35 + 22 + 10 808 Sep/11

7 Idaho 53 32 + 21 + 4 1,202 Nov/11

Mo/Yr

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

State Net Intensity N=

Page 38: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Why do we conduct polls and surveys?

• state views/education culture

• assessment/comparison of states

• national change over time

• seek diverse perspectives

• launch/frame policy conversations

Page 39: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Considering…

~ Levels

~ Differences/Gaps/Spread/Net (Favor – Oppose)

~ Intensities (Strong Favor – Strong Oppose)

Page 40: Polling Together (2013)

NOTE: "Familiar" values based on combining "Very" and "Somewhat" familiar responses. This chart is suggestive for making relative comparisons. Several factors may contribute to response variation on the same questions: state surveys have been administered in different time periods; sample sizes vary, producing different margins of error; survey questionnaires slightly vary on question quantity and question ordering. We use a Registered Voters (RV) sample frame for each state survey.

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 41: Polling Together (2013)

NOTE: The previous chart is suggestive for making relative comparisons. Several factors may contribute to response variation on the same questions: state surveys have been administered in different time periods; sample sizes vary, producing different margins of error; survey questionnaires slightly vary on question quantity and question ordering. We use a Registered Voters (RV) sample frame for each state survey.

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 42: Polling Together (2013)

NOTE: "Favor" and "Oppose" values based on combining "Strongly" and "Somewhat" responses. This chart is suggestive for making relative comparisons. Several factors may contribute to response variation on the same questions: state surveys have been administered in different time periods; sample sizes vary, producing different margins of error; survey questionnaires slightly vary on question quantity and question ordering. We use a Registered Voters (RV) sample frame for each state survey. Intensity is measured by subtracting the percentage of "strongly oppose" responses from the percentage of "strongly favor" responses. The difference indicates how passionate the support or opposition is for a given policy or proposal. If two or more states have the same Net value, then the Intensity value is tie-breaker #1. If still a tie, then Favor value is tie-breaker #2.

The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

Page 43: Polling Together (2013)

Survey Organization: Braun Research, Inc. (BRI) 

Sponsor: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice 

Interview Dates: 2010 to 2012 (field dates vary by state) 

Interview Method: Live Telephone

(landline-to-cell phone ratio varies by state) 

Avg Interview Length: 12 minutes  

Language(s): English, Spanish (in select states)  

Sample Frame: Registered Voters 

Sampling Method: Probability Sampling; Random Digit Dial (RDD)

Dual Frame 

Sample Size: Varies by State  

Margin of Error: Varies by State 

Weighting? Yes (demographic weights vary by state) 

Page 44: Polling Together (2013)

edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice | edchoice.org

About the Friedman Foundation• Established in 1996• Headquarters in Indianapolis, IN• 501(c)(3) / Nonpartisan / Nonprofit• What do we do?

Working with local and state partners,

we are committed to research, education, and outreach on the vital issues and implications

related to choice and competition in K-12 education.