98 00263 Californians Speak on Education and Reform Options Uneven Faith in Teachers, School Boards, and the State as Designers of Change I PAC E A PACE - Field Institute Poll March 1998 Policy Analysis for California Education PACE University of California, Berkeley I Stanford University 3653 Tolman Hall I Berkeley, CA 94720—1670 Telephone: (510) 642—7223 Web Site: http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/researCh/PACE/pace.html Californians Speak on Education and Reform Options Uneven Faith in Teachers, School Boards, and the State as Designers of Change The PACE - Field Institute School Reform Poll Bruce Fuller University of California I Berkeley Gerald Hayward PACE I Sacramento Michael Kirst Stanford University With assistance from Mark DiCamillo The Field Institute March 1998 [he School Reform P01] is supported in part by the Stuart Foundation. The Koret Foundation is contributing to l’ACE‘s public information initiative and this study. The Hewlett Foundation and the University of California support PACE’s infrastructure. Additional copies of this report and complete statistical tabulations are available. "V- W'van: , A .v ‘ - on He MMMWW’M ”" "Wk e.» um, ,7 r H ‘..u .m, an», ’fiim“; ,3: . g/e “‘. fl“- I‘M _',,, , {aéflfiwm‘ ‘7‘ .zglgflqug an} 313 {8634- f a '5 N ‘3 {natifsiififj {53.33133 "f" l‘ . 37V 1. 1 YW£§EV~D é ‘33 i 3‘ I” {g ,; '; ‘5 4+ . f '1 : ”$0533: '13; w, V,“ m, fiififlm ;: 3:24 Summary Cantankerous debates over the quality of public education -- for nearly two centuries -- have recurrently preoccupied parents, civic activists, and political leaders. Today the future of public schooling is the issue that most worries voters in California and nationwide, according to recent polls. In turn, political leaders and candidates have put forward a variety of school reform proposals. A new election season is underway. Politicians and civic activists are eagerly responding to the public’s concern over how schools can be effectively improved. In February, PACE and the Field Institute completed a statewide School Reform P011 to assess (1) how Californians view the quality of public education, (2) who they most trust as architects of reform, and (3) how they are evaluating major reform proposals being advanced. This report details major findings stemming from a statewide survey of 1,003 Californians: I How pressing is the need to reform the public schools? Only 6% of those interviewed believe that our schools “provide a quality education.” Over 61% believe “a major overhaul” of the schools is required. Another 29% believe that "minor changes” are needed. Two years ago when we asked the identical question. 54% of all Californians surveyed reported that a major overhaul was necessary. Confidence in the public schools continues to slip. I Who do you trust as architects of school reform? The majority of Californians express considerable faith in local parents and teachers as the actors that can best motivate and craft school improvements. Teachers are most trusted as the designers of better classroom practices. When it comes to shaping teaching practices that best aid students with limited English, however, Californians are split evenly between retaining local control versus implementing a uniform pedagogical policy statewide. PACE School Reform Poll / Page I 3"- 8351555353 _m§5'sm_ 55333335: W 353": : 35335513933523 _ . , 133365555 255-33 53365553 35 E55. 53 3355's 5‘: 3535:5313 3:351:35 a 7 W9 5 “ 3555535535: 555:: 5555515 555355355 fiawflwz 55 W35 55155555555 3593550 ‘ 355' 55:5 .5357: ' 53355555 waibd W W (3535: 3135355 (MT .5 ‘ A' 3533553 10555555 [55 m 555355555555 155555555555 555555 55355555557 5555555 5:555: 35555555555 3%” Wm fifmdw: MW 3555 5'15 a.» 55‘“: 55555515357 55331.7(.“55' @ : ‘3me 2555555533 5535 3'55- 5535555 5 ’ ‘ W‘fim 55353315 55: $3533 3M5» ”fa: 55"55;.:.5 ;' #555355“: :35 '7? [.3M5m2'55fim55mfl53 i353 235255” 5‘23 . .33555533513535505335555 ': 5:53" ' rim! " biiwaarismfimmmg 355555355535 53555., W 51533 5.3555W 55535 WM” :Em 5555353355533 5 5:: . 35; ’_ 755355091 53353-555 55513355515: w 311525335553555355 55.55 Californians endorse more decisive action by Sacramento policy makers when it comes to strengthening training standards that new teachers must meet. Most adults also express the most trust in Sacramento agencies for setting uniform standards for promoting children to higher grade levels or for determining which students graduate. California citizens express little faith in their local school boards or administrators as effective players in raising school quality. The message voice by the majority of those interviewed is that more decisive action should be taken in Sacramento, while retaining teacher discretion over pedagogical practices. This represents a double-pronged approach to reform that largely leaves school boards and district administrators out of the picture. I How do Californians view the panoply of school reform proposals recently advanced? The majority of the those surveyed are very supportive of the new state mandates proposed by Governor Wilson, Senator Feinstein, and the Democratic gubernatorial candidates. Even Republicans and self-described conservative voters express strong support for having Sacramento set student promotion and graduation requirements, mandate summer school for low- performing students. tighten curricular standards, create a chief inspector of schools. and lengthen the school year. These measures, which in the aggregate would significantly reduce local control, receive wide bipartisan support among all Californians surveyed. as well as when we look just at likely voters. President Clinton’s proposal to have voluntary national examinations, while supported by a clear majority (64%), is more controversial among different political blocs of Californians. The proposal is supported by a higher share of women, compared to men (67% versus 59%, respectively), Democrats versus Republicans (72% to 51%), and Latinos compared to blacks (71% versus 50%). In contrast, Californians express sharply mixed reactions over reform proposals that would further decentralize the governance of local schools. For example, respondents are split evenly over Governor Wilson’s proposal to make it easier for local voters to raise their taxes to support school construction: 46% favor and 46% oppose his push to require a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds plurality. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of all Republicans surveyed oppose this proposal; 45% of all Democrats oppose it. Older voters oppose the idea; younger voters support it. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 2 ” 222221; 22222322 2222222 '_ 22W mmwvf? 222‘ .. . 3 M2 ...~'2$2’2§2 422321212 4.2222932; . 4:22:22 22 222213428 11;: “.52’1355332? ‘2 ‘ 5"”? 74. Ki! ‘ ”£222 ‘32:: 2 21232.22 32* 22: 2:425 28. 2532: T22. , '* 2:2 2... 7222.22," _. . . "232232262222 . E E 2 E demmfiwmgjg ~ 22 w. .. ‘ E .(22 (:22: 2222.22 2x22? 2 2: ~ ‘ ' ‘ E 22322321222221.222‘22222‘2 “232m .222, ';222~.>2 2322 ‘,~% .2223222222222 2-.. 2‘» ,. ,, 2i akami 222 .2 22-3» 2.22.2.2; “2:222:23; 2:22 I222 222222223 :22 .2252 22 222 2.222222222222232 #2221222 2» 2.? ~ 3;" ’ 2&4 $22222 22.2252 ““622 222122122; 222222 22.2 d: :2. E 2 * . 2 2222.22.22.2ng 222252.22 2:2 22 22:22.22 «221022221 xiv ‘ ‘ f a; 2 '2 2 . 22:223- fiéfifififi 53 322222222 23223222622333)! E Q": , : s; ’4. \_ ’ . 22 2232552222222 232232,»? 22?? 3222212322 ' 52:22! 2224:2122 2:": ’ . 2. I _ 5" ‘21,, {2 . k i E ‘ Additional proposals to more radically decentralize the management of local schools also are proving to be controversial. Only 49% support expanding the number of charter schools; many women remain undecided. A majority of Californians continue to oppose school vouchers that would allow using taxpayer dollars for private or parochial schooling (52% opposed overall). Among Democrats, 72% are opposed to vouchers; just 31% of Republicans surveyed oppose the idea. Interestingly, Latino voters are split evenly on the voucher question. The PACE School Reform Poll included questions asked of 1,003 Californians surveyed in early February. For these questions the margin of error equals plus or minus 3 percentage points. Other questions were asked of about half the sample, 510 adults. Here the margin of error is +/— 4.5 points. The graphs that summarize our findings appear at the end of the text and each specifies which confidence interval applies. Complete tabulations for the survey are available from PACED PACE School Reform Poll / Page 3 mm im mama mm? 53% 1. Aims of the PACE-Field Institute School Reform Poll Given the public’s deepening concern over education, political leaders, candidates. and civic activists are putting forward a variety of school reform proposals. Several have been introduced as legislation in Sacramento; other reforms are being advanced as statewide ballot propositions. On the June and November election ballots it now appears that Californians will get a chance to vote on several policy options: the virtual elimination of bilingual classrooms, a longer school year, capping spending on school administration, and abolishing the “social promotion” of poorly performing students. The state legislature will judge the wisdom of other proposals put forward by Mr. Wilson, Ms. Feinstein, and individual legislators: mandatory summer school for low achievers, a new chief inspector of schools, lowering the voting requirement to raise local taxes for school construction, and creating a school voucher experiment, allowing parents to use public monies to enroll their children in private schools. Another ballot initiative may qualify to expand the number of charter schools, a proposal that gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren already has endorsed.1 The PACE School Reform Poll gauges how Californians are evaluating this array of policy proposals. We set these views in context by taking stock of how citizens presently view the quality of public education, and report on whether public concern is intensifying or subsiding, relative to earlier surveys. Finally, we were curious about who Californians trust most as the architects of mandates or teaching practices that might boost student performance. The debate over how best to reform the public schools involves not only what to do, but also who will citizens and likely voters entrust to design and implement policy change, from local teachers to Sacramento policy makers. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 4 axfifii’ PM {5’ 5%?571 ”Jiiiffl $313 43?; 3-. {we we Kiri foaqiamemqma :eei'we m? 33:11:; 1313351131: fast»; ‘ 1;: ‘f ‘3’?! f; 3;“; {:1 my; * " 1 “131313315wa , we - . . I WM IQ fame $33M {5 : 31;: . q ‘ WW3!) 31:31:19”: mg 43-02?sz 1 1 . t L : flan?! Aeggxmse whee (3:4 ”:3. 13333333313 ”fie: 3333311, me 333: w .1 , . w a ,» , 1- 1.31% m: 11%; 1. ' 31353321113 $115633 31'“ ..; 3331*”6‘15‘37 ‘1’”‘11‘1‘2; 9 yi :1 " ' Pw:1 23111132331” $7an mmi‘wi 343 7)} mm; «in w.‘ 'L ~ 3333 mm mime}: 5533;: 3mm; 53:33 This latter issue —- Who do you trust? -- cuts to the heart of how public schools are governed. Since the advent of the one-room school house, local communities have largely exercised authority over their own schools. Since the 19605. however, this tradition has been altered considerably, as federal and state govemments have become more involved in public education. Agencies in Sacramento and Washington DO have attempted, with some success, to equalize resources available to schools in rich and poor communities; to provide new aid for special education, reading programs, preschooling, and bilingual programs; and to advance statewide policies which increase student graduation requirements or teacher training standards. In the aftermath of Proposition 13, the state government also has raised its proportional share of school financing, relative to the declining share coming from local property taxes. As education has risen to the top of the domestic policy agenda, presidents, governors, and candidates are putting forward school reform ideas that could -- if approved in 1998 -— centralize more authority in Sacramento. These measures include the possibility of mandating one single way of teaching children with limited English skills; standardizing student promotion and graduation requirements in Sacramento; placing a 5% cap on how much local school boards can allocate for school administration; and requiring districts to force low- achieving students to take summer school. At the same time, a subset of the reform proposals would further decentralize school govemance and budgetary control. Rather than enacting universal statewide mandates, these options award greater control to each individual school, even directly to parents through market-oriented reforms. Here decentralization is the silver bullet aimed at raising student achievement, rather than vesting more authority in Sacramento. For example, Governor Wilson has proposed that school budgets and personnel decisions be moved from school boards and district PACE School Reform Poll / Page 5 333333 31*;"3 ”3:533“: xii: » jigxxirxghxx xx: 3 {iiimmeq :3 33x33 3331 m «r ,» « H mlm‘wxm‘iwh 3W! $113333 amxtxxfiis , \ {323333133ngan xi; 5 m 3mm maxim 3m". a: mum 8i mmmm 333E mug“ 13:23:“ Eta-2".» ‘ . 3 :~ ' ,5 , ~34; :51-” . .J 3,,‘.,. xi; 5 3sz fifflix “13335:: .23 i , Titus 24118631333) 3333;5th 9 I): S”‘.‘ 1 i 1 I £25 Juqukge 355.1,.Iii53 l . ' - ‘ .. 2 agfixiia‘i xxx'wtsgé ‘ém: ‘ i “A , administrators down to each individual school, controlled by a council comprised of parents and teachers. This is a decentralizing reform that has been largely implemented in England and, on a more limited scale, within the Chicago city schools. Other education activists are seeking to lift the lid on the number of charter schools that can operate free of the education code, revisited by local school boards just every five years. Mr. Wilson and gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren, along with the national Republican leadership, have renewed their push for school vouchers. This would allow the use of taxpayer monies by parents who enroll their child in a private or parochial school. Do Californians view centralizing reforms differently from those proposals that push to further decentralize public education? Or, perhaps citizens are just so worried about the state of public education that they are willing to embark on a set of contradictory reforms? If the voters want to “get tough on education,” maybe they just want action, no matter which actors take up the charge. Organization of the Report We begin by reporting basic findings for each major question that was posed to a statewide random sample of California adults. These details are organized around the three major topics: ( 1) How Californians View the quality of public education, (2) who they most trust as designers of effective reforms, and (3) how they are evaluating the major reform proposals being advanced by political leaders and candidates. For each major question, a graphic is provided to illustrate major patterns. The text provides further details. Complete tabulations for each question, broken down for various population groups, are available from PACE. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 6 7: wa'm'ififiqh mag 35??? mam; £55me- p“, . , mmwm; 2mm ‘T’amfim W Wiw aw mm {Md‘ is at: fizfi'itm 2mm $10!}: «3’? r, m I, j j; ' Q; fifiémfiéfigvfi; a» J! x ‘ : WWW? ‘Nfii‘m Mm ‘if‘fi' 3335,}; _ 395M $133135 —%%;§ 3‘ .am 355} W? W Main! ' ‘ wmfmw ,wmiim aviaw'fis 1&3”in if?! va ,gga‘fiad m nqmi :3 z'mmissaab .- =41 szaim'mwm cw £674;qu z 5 ‘ .. wmmxmmm .mmmm R _ A » v 4.; mm}, f a; 1: ,..“, II. Californians Assess the Quality of Public Education In 1996, we asked California citizens, “Which comes closer to your own view... of the public schools —- that it currently provides quality education, that it needs minor changes. or that it needs a major overhaul? ” Two years ago, 54% of all respondents indicated that it needs a major overall.2 In the February School Reform Poll, this share had risen significantly to 61%. Earlier surveys -- in California and nationwide -- show that 10% to 20% of all citizens have a significantly higher assessment of their own neighborhood schools, relative to the school system overall. For both, Californians’ assessments actually improved somewhat over the 19805. Since the early 19905, however, overall evaluations of public education appear to have slipped again.3 Figure 1 details how this assessment differs only slightly among the diverse Califomians who participated in the February PACE survey. Women are a bit more concerned, with 64% desiring a major overhaul, relative to 58% of men. Latino respondents are slightly less worried, 55% desiring a major overhaul, compared to 65% of black respondents. Older Californians are more concerned: 70% of respondents over age 50, express the need for a major overhaul, versus 5396 of all respondents, age 18-24. [11. Who Do You Trust as the Architects of School Reform? Most school reform proposals empower a particular level of government -- or teachers and local educators —- to craft improvements aimed at boosting children’s achievement. Political leaders and candidates have been advancing reform ideas that would vest greater authority in Sacramento agencies, such as the state legislature or the Department of Education. Other proposals would further PACE School Reform Poll / Page 7 $33.? 3 Iififiwm «@393: I am as gmflmfi :39 ilfitkfiiaifiwifi v33 ax; zufl E’mwhfi warm»; . w w MMIWMQ his wwi mhmira 8 WM {1‘3”} WW6 333W§fl a. 343:3: {#314 g; :r; 5? mp é‘immwg‘m 5m paya; decentralize governance and budgetary control to the school level, via school-site councils, charter schools, and vouchers. Before asking respondents about their views of specific proposals, we sought to better understand the actors that they would most trust with the task of school reform. We first asked who they generally trusted the most, from parents and teachers to Sacramento policy makers. Then, we explored whether they would entrust different actors, depending on the type of reform being advanced. For instance, do Californians want teachers to retain certain authority over pedagogical practices? Whereas, raising teacher training requirements is viewed as a legitimate task for state agencies to tackle? The question put to respondents: “ Various people and government agencies play a role in improving our schools. From the following list, please tell me who you trust the most in shaping policies or practices that will most efi’ectively raise our children '5 school achievement. Figure 2 details the overall findings. Among all 1,003 respondents, 33% express the most trust in parents as architects of reform. They are followed closely by teachers, for whom 32% of the respondents express the most trust. Support for school boards is slight, just 12%. Just over 10% indicate that they trust the superintendent of schools in Sacramento and her Department of Education. Only 6% report that they most trust the governor and the legislature (in total 16% most trusting Sacramento based agencies). The remainder are unsure or have no opinion. Partisan differences are important to highlight. Among Republicans, parents are the most trusted sources of reform by 43%, then teachers, by 24% of those PACE School Reform Poll / Page 8 31%?{331 {is m3 333:: :33 3339:3133 {WM amaibfl: 373%: 3:: :0 q. '31:) mmmqafl 13:3 33:: Miami :35} 23:13 3:433:3303 3:. - 3:23 1333:3332: 3:3“? «33:33:35 ; Wt} fimfliémfifi 3:33:33 .1 33033311: 323333: {ti T‘afiiifimfi 331:: n: :1: 3333? mm“: 2333."; Y3 (-7: {1:33 3n . 5.2531} h'bfii? 5m '3 tj A u: {I 1:; “‘31:, 3:; 33132333313“ :32 i: .231: 3 33333333353 3 33 3 33333 3133:: ad: :mwvmm: 3?: 33m 31: 3:33:33 interviewed. Among Democrats, teachers are most trusted by 35%, then parents, by 28%. We then asked respondents who they most trusted to act effectively on three specific issues: I Determining competency standards for teachers. I Establishing student promotion and graduation requirements. I Deciding on what teaching methods to use in the classroom. Those interviewed did distinguish between these issues when expressing who they would trust to design effective reforms. For example. 48% of all respondents believe that Sacramento policy makers (the state Department of Education, the legislature, or the governor) could be most trusted to determine competency standards for teachers. Just under 20% most trust local school boards. Only 12% most trust teachers to set their own competency standards. In contrast, 46% of all respondents report the most trust in teachers in deciding which teaching methods to use in the classroom. Only 11% trust parents to set pedagogical practices; 18% most trust school boards; 21% trust Sacramento agencies to determine best teaching practices. Faith in teachers may be slipping a bit. We asked a very similar question in 1996 regarding teaching practices. In that survey, 57% of all Californians interviewed reported that they most trusted teachers to have authority over pedagogical practices. The February School Reform Poll shows an 11-point decline. Yet overall, Californians retain a strong faith in their local teachers and continue to believe that they should have discretion over pedagogical practices -- even when it comes to teaching non-English speaking students. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 9 :m::::::::5§ mi: 33:: " yfiiaé I m 3‘3 €332: J; 303:2? I 7 mm :m: J: 53:33: wimp mm @mmqmmuxm 3:: .: :1: <3: :ry—tmézamw :wn ‘r‘Jfir‘J‘flmib :Li Mn mam ad: may: 23:: @1qu . :J :J 1 if”? mammal; w}: :5: ‘32:: 9:. Emma: 3:5:qu m. :Khmm fmmm 3:591: .155: .z: 538;! gag-m: mg is JJ J :3 : -~ : mast; 33%;”:th mad :3; ’13“? a “E éiflilt’iiir} 31:23:31.3.» *3: If»? 'ram:;r :sJfi: J;: m” :3: Mia: ¥ j mmm m «:3 :JJ :j saw a 13:33:: 2mm; :1 33:33: in ”33.1””: :ifi‘ ‘3 .:3: ifiawyfll (I VMii Emmi? {413' ’ - . '3 v mam: a: mama: J , \ i " _ 3? 3833‘? tin“: :me‘w} 56:22:? 3:113:13 "'1 Sharp partisan differences arise on this topic of trust in teachers: 52% of all Democrats most trust teachers when it comes to pedagogical improvements; just 33% of all Republicans do so. Fully 60% of black respondents most trust teachers, versus 45% among Latino respondents. Older citizens have the least amount of trust in teachers when it comes to teaching practices. Just 27% of respondents over age 60 express the most faith in teachers, compared to 56% of those interviewed, age 18-24. Thinning-out Administrative Layers California citizens express little trust in their local school boards as effective agents of reform. Concern over the quality of education is so intense, that most adults interviewed seem to be looking to Sacramento for strong, statewide action. A few years ago the voters urged political leaders to “get tough on crime.” Our results suggest that now a majority of citizens are looking to Sacramento to “get tough on education." School boards and administrators may be viewed as part of the problem, not actors who will energize meaningful reforms. A set of universal antidotes, administered to all local patients, appears to be the most effective policy remedy in the minds of most Californians. An important reminder: While Californians are looking to Sacramento or statewide policy mandates as key sources of reform, their trust level in state agencies clearly depends upon the area of reform being discussed. Another indication of Califomians’ eroding faith in local administrators was revealed in a recent Field Poll finding that 53% of all likely voters favor Proposition 223 (appearing on the June ballot) which would limit local spending on school administrators to just 5% of local education budgets. One in five likely voters remains undecided; 27% oppose the ballot initiative.4 PACE School Reform Poll / Page 10 k ‘ m magma 1‘27: 25222 2:322: 2,.- 12%;.- zmfi 32:22:33: "2 2222;222:222 23232332 :2 2:22:26 il?}£}i‘¥f2é‘f 2:::2¥3§322§222 2:221:23, mfifiifififl 2::3‘2‘2229 22 2:22“ awn ~22; m: 1f!’rfi£"?"i; :22: gzavmzfimg £2321 " . i V :2???“ _ :gn‘flbnfla Wm *W 32:22: ‘Q‘MB ,m‘u2‘?:_2: . - . may “as; 4 Mi 2:: {1:91:33 7"}ri 9 3:2"; Writ {3:22 , -‘ miufi': ‘23? hams-N22; , ‘ ' 7 , Mimi {#:2222222 2': 11%” 2:91:38 .5 5 : ,- , g‘i \ ‘gmghmizmxmuba is; fiwé‘maiai :21. {W2 :23: (3:? m“! fig“. 22:“:{2’12‘9 22:24:22! 7% FAQ. President Clinton’s National Exam Proposal This reform idea has become a significant barometer of citizens’ willingness to centralize greater authority over public schools within Washington DC. or state capitals. It is a reform strategy that other nations, Japan and Britain for instance, have adopted. The policy approach vests within central Government the authority to determine what children should learn and at what level of proficiency. Local schools are then given authority over the means by which teachers and school staff attempt to raise children’s achievement. Figure 4 shows that Californians strongly support Mr. Clinton’s proposal for a national exam which would be utilized voluntarily by states or local school districts. Statewide, 64% of those interviewed favor the proposal. Only 28% oppose the idea, and 8% remain undecided. The identical question was asked of a national sample of Americans last summer in a Gallup Poll. Nationwide 57% of all respondents favored the President’s exam proposal; 37% were opposed.5 A slim majority of Republicans support the national exam proposal, 51% in favor to 39% opposed. Democrats overwhelmingly support this centralized policy innovation by a 72% to 21% margin. Maj or ethnic differences contribute to the controversial character of the national exam idea. Black respondents are split evenly between supporters (50%) and opponents (49%). But Latinos heavily favor national exams, 71% to 22%. Bilingual Education: Who Should Control Teaching Practices? The so-called Unz Initiative (Proposition 227 on the June ballot) would require that virtually all children with limited English skills be instructed only in PACE School Reform Poll / Page 1 l 33m Mewmm 3mm ' 338 ad 331%?! $333333; {33331332 {warm 5 ‘ .I ‘ WWM 3339333339 37‘33 .wiw’amffl 33331333212 I _. WWMII 33385353: 3-933 $3233» .333 $333353, '3 51313332333312 ’II’ 32313333323333 3:;- 3.25% WME 3W:Wg 331333333{1335;133:3333 23 Imm 3333333333333 :33 3 'IIIICII‘I Wamaafi: Madam 3:!3333315333armyI) 3333:):2439I133II3 .4; g 3 . 5' I, i Kiwi? 533323133 ., ' $131333 033363 méafiImIfrzmaa 33:33:21.3: I I 61;. I3}. " (59GB) WWQUE' WWII 2:13:33; I; 3‘33 iI'ffri”_‘-I't€‘.ei‘is*“. . I331}; :33: I 1" 243335333 595:3 03‘ $91? 313-3333 {331 “13313317: 3 .37“ i ;:4I_. .. {3 I II .I ?* I1 3333333331“! 3312;131:7333 3" Main mm I BMW‘QHUE flit} 334'} '7 f .IIIISI’V': ‘ I - I ::..flufi $31. ‘ ‘ {III (mo-hamm363113233333ng y g -:. I I s “-33:33 English. That is, the state would be required to enforce a single form of pedagogy, regardless of local conditions or individual differences across diverse children. We saw above how the majority of Californians believe that teachers should retain control over pedagogical practices. But do citizens feel so strongly about instruction in English that they endorse a uniform mandate that would be enforced from Sacramento? In 1996, we asked a sample of Californians this question: “Thinking about students who do not speak English well. would you favor a system in which each local school district decided for itself how best to teach English language skills... or would you favor a uniform statewide policy regarding the way non-English- speaking students are taught English skills? " Two years ago Californians were split evenly: 46% favored retaining local control. and 46% favored a uniform statewide policy. The February School Reform Poll reveals no significant movement on this issue: 49% favor local control, and 44% favor a statewide policy prescribing teaching practices for students with limited English proficiency. An early Los Angeles Times poll on the Unz Initiative found that 69% of likely California voters would support requiring all children to participate in English immersion programs.6 Yet when the issue is framed in terms of which level of public authority -- Sacramento or local districts and teachers —- should design and enforce pedagogical practices, Californians are evenly split. Latinos, younger, and better educated respondents more strongly favor local control over this issue. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 12 {323% 322mm 22222222222 - mm 322% 2:222:%§2s%% m ““Mzflufigm 25222222 222 25222 32222923222221? Q 9 #3 was: i‘fififi’e‘fi M2: 22w.” r2222r292fi£223 2:33:13 2:: 252*]25222771? , V. , "Q 9111’ vaékiz‘; ”Mammy; Arnhw :221’22'25222‘52’} 3?» hm: ,iafififm 1mm Wit 32222222222222: {:9 12223221521322: 22%;}??233? “ WWW gfléri: .2333 {$2622 2231;323:3232; ;. ‘ L ‘ {93:22: . m 2W3} 332:2“; ifi‘iéiém; 3223 $953611} We: 2222mm” ”.521 Eli mfiqi‘aima} m mybérda £5222 122:2: ; dséM'ia 2mm 22: 1725222223 8% :24. 2.; 222; 2:222:22; 2:; a 2 2 3 #3221; 2; 4 bm’gi «‘ 1 1 44;? bar; :2 n 2. 2 212 : 'F‘\¥ 4-: '3 g. ' $3.: 2... .m 333w ‘2 H: sjwfihunu ‘ L'a Una.“ . ”2’ ," 2‘ 3 .20511353 .S‘M {H2933 :; ; df‘fiim ‘15; : ‘32 2 H 2 * 2 2 2. « “- I . 2 " .' 7 2 ‘ ' 5 mm ism W2 £22322; 2:22:22? .2 .22 2 - h 2 ' 2 . 23;“;2 - IV. Statewide Mandates versus Decentralized School Reforms We asked about 10 school reform proposals that have been endorsed by various political leaders, including Mr. Wilson, Ms. Feinstein, and declared gubernatorial candidates. Five of these proposals would require legislative action in Sacramento and/or place state agencies in the role of enforcing uniform policies. Policy proposals that require more centralized authority, based in Sacramento, include: I Moving to statewide standards, based on test scores, for which students would be promoted to the next higher grade level or be allowed to graduate. The aim is to “end social promotion.” This authority current resides with local school boards and is usually left up to individual teachers. I Mandating from Sacramento that low-performing students, as defined by a state agency, must attend a four—week summer school program. I Setting. in Sacramento, more challenging curricular and graduation standards which all teachers must follow. I Creating a “chief inspector of schools” office that would have the authority to take over low-performing schools. I Lengthening the school year by 7—10 days. Figure 6 reveals widespread public support for these kinds of statewide policy mandates. Setting uniform student promotion requirements -— “based on students passing an achievement test. rather than leaving this up to teachers” -- is supported two to one among those interviewed (62% in favor, 31% opposed). Requiring low-performing students to attend summer school is even more heavily supported, 84% in favor to 12% opposed. This proposal is controversial across different groups. Political conservatives actually support this centralized reform more heavily (69%), compared to PACE School Reform Poll / Page 13 armmgmsfi Ear/fl gaimbuwi? 1W3 Ewe». «- ”i mi’ififi mum {ms awe: «fr: mm: ma m 313% mi twiméf zadafim “is $1515; 1-: w Wadi.- £91523 “:3 - ‘ 3"?{3’3573133'5 ' ‘ mag 35% 3mm 53:; 3me ”(iswhm m2: ha? 3an ~~ almagw’w mg)?" ivfiuérrv 3 17‘, " a - '- 2:5? ¥ 24*” "a?“ a . .a' warm; Wig: F fag-w ;. y * r “ w”? . ‘ L, x- g vmd m: . . a , i:,'.‘.:'§i§£ 3’13: ’2 " . ,‘1 ? My”? 1 , ; moderates (60%), and liberals (54%). Only 42% of all black respondents support the proposal, compared to 61% of Latinos. Women are among the strongest backers (65% in favor) relative to men (59% in favor). The establishment of “more challenging statewide curriculum standards that all teachers would be required to follow in their classrooms” is supported by 76% of those interviewed, with just 18% opposed. Even conservatives support the chief inspector idea, a European-style form of central regulation being put forward by Governor Wilson and Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Gray Davis. Among those identifying themselves as “strongly" or “moderately conservative,” 61% support this regulatory agent who would ride out from Sacramento to take over ineffective schools. Among all Republicans, 58% support the proposal, compared to 66% of all Democrats interviewed. Legislative action to lengthen the school year by at least 8 days is supported by 63% of all respondents, with 28% opposing the idea. Californians express mixed reactions when it comes to alternative policy remedies that would further decentralize control of schools. We asked about these five proposals: I Creating school-level councils comprised of parents and teachers who would have the power to control school budgets, rather than local school boards. This governance reform is being tried in Chicago with mixed success. I Making it easier for local voters to raise their property taxes to finance school construction and renovation. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 14 WWW 1:» W3 1% nafiw arm WWW aW Jiwdaa 31:} ira'xmm fikimgamfib :riavii‘mfi m w gfliwqqc} M‘SS rim: .2: 3&erme f.§fi"§n ( I Expanding the number of charter schools, taxpayer supported schools that escape state and local regulation for a period of up to five years. I Enacting a school voucher system where taxpayer dollars could be used to enroll children in private and parochial schools. I Expanding local preschool and child-care programs which are operated by local schools or community organizations. Figure 7 reports on Californians’ levels of support or opposition to these decentralized policy proposals. The idea of further decentralizing governance and budgetary control down to the school level, “rather than leaving this power to the local school board or district superintendent, ” is heavily supported. Statewide, 76% are in favor, with 19% opposed. Here again we see that faith in local boards and administrators is quite low among most Californians. Opinions are quite uniform across partisan, ethnic, and social-class groups. Giving schools control over their budgets is a very popular idea. In contrast, Governor Wilson’s proposal to make it easier to raise local taxes for school construction bonds is proving to be quite contentious. Californians are split down the middle on this issue: 46% support moving to a simple majority vote. rather than the present two-thirds vote required; 47% are opposed to this liberalization. Older respondents are generally opposed, with only 34% supporting the proposal among Californians over age 50. Among respondents, age 18—24. 57% support moving toward a simple majority vote. Liberals back the proposal, 60% in favor to 31% opposed. A much smaller share of conservatives back Mr. Wilson‘s proposal: just 34% in favor, to 58% opposed. Californians are unsure of charter schools as a school reform device. These innovative schools are receiving growing notoriety and enthusiastic support by the Clinton Administration and the Congress. California was the second state in the PACE School Reform Poll / Page 15 i . M33333) 2633333. 33333333 3333333373333 3’33: , , , _ 3 3m 33133337333333? :33 333333313333333 333333 3333:: _, £39333 "333333333333 ‘33:: 3: 333 2333333333 33:33:33 353333 333333 333 : 5? WWW 333333323 3 3333433 . 33* 3533‘ 331333333333 33333: 33:33:33: 13:33:33: 3: . $39333: {333333333333 3332333333333 333 3333333. - p.33 333333333 .333 33333 “33‘ 333313“ -. , ' i ‘- WMdfiimmfiJ 3333:3333 33:33:33,333: 3 233333333; 3; 33333333333333.3333» :3de 3333333333 333: .bwmgmafifi 3.3:? ‘; j, .3: r W, . de 3333’31333313303333 3333333333 333:3: ~ 33333335 #:3333333 03333323333333: 33333: ~33 ~~ 3 nation to allow parents, teachers, and local activists to secede from local school districts, with public review every five years. But among all respondents, just 49% favor expanding the number of charter schools, while 37% are opposed to the idea. Fourteen percent (14%) hold no clear opinion. Liberals and younger respondents express significantly more support for charter schools than do Californians over age 50, those who remain most cautious about decentralized reforms in general. A majority of Californians continue to oppose school vouchers: 44% in favor, to 52% opposed. This level of support is virtually unchanged since we asked a similar question in the 1996 PACE poll. Vouchers continue to be a divisive issue. Conservatives strongly back a voucher program: 63% in favor, to 33% opposed. Liberals remain adamantly opposed: 27% in favor, to 67% opposed. Very few citizens remain undecided on the voucher issue, one which is now widely debated and highly politicized. A similar question on vouchers was asked on the 1997 national Gallup education poll. Overall, the national results mirrored our own findings for California: 44% of sampled Americans supported the voucher concept and 52% were opposed. Nationally, however, almost two-thirds of all Latinos interviewed supported vouchers, and blacks were split evenly (48% in support, 50% opposed).7 On the School Reform Poll we found that California Latinos were split on vouchers (49% in favor, 46% opposed), while blacks are more strongly opposed (40% in favor, 60% opposed). Governor Wilson and state schools chief Delaine Eastin recently have pushed to dramatically expand local preschool and child-care programs. Their proposals would rely on local schools and community organizations to operate expanded preschools. This idea -- ”Spending more tax dollars to expand preschool PACE School Reform Poll / Page 16 3mm}! Wmsfls 3552035!“ (if? bammm (Iifimd £11330 'rzéd3a3w1r3' «33W: Mme: 1333434 {3.13 . Jim 33:33:: 391123st 3333110333 3 mi: harm; {353330133 3:43:11 5335:: if 3.3% 333:?» ; -~ ,. um: W m .33; m 3 amaaqmq 3333?“? .wmgczq 3.:33313353 Fa»: . «a; £33,;- ' s r : 3:313:35 xswmvoemnzzsm mum» in , mt 3 ft Rxmha aqhnmgm ()3: mvw‘u i F w 9.13 x M 333‘“! EFL”. ré'zaififz ; .F'.‘ f” , «if? 8 marsh; 3333:3313: affifixfil} in :3 ‘5 3.333733: 4;: :st Lzrfsaif‘fiinic 3 733;, , ‘33:”) if; ‘3} 3:3,: , .i m; (2*; ’3“)! hwuw i 613:}. {'1' programs” -— is supported by 68% of Californians interviewed. Latino and black respondents are among the strongest supporters. Latinos favor the idea by a 75% to 20% plurality. Among black respondents, 82% supported expanded preschool programs, with just 12% opposed. Even among “moderately conservative” respondents, over two-thirds back higher spending for preschool expansion.8 Partisan Differences? We were surprised by the extent to which conservatives and moderates back policy reforms that represent statewide mandates or shifting more control to Sacramento. A large portion of conservatives and Republicans simultaneously back stronger centralized action by Sacramento and decentralizing remedies (such as vouchers). To further explore partisan or philosophical differences in the preferred locus of school reform, we focused on levels of support observed between Republicans and Democrats. Figure 8 shows small differences between Republicans and Democrats in their support of statewide mandates. Figure 9, however, reveals partisan gaps in how decentralized reform proposals are being evaluated. Democrats more heavily favor easing the plurality required to raise local taxes for school bonds and expanding local preschool programs. Republicans more strongly support a move to school vouchers. D0 Likely Voters Express Differing Views? Likely voters, in general, more heavily support statewide mandates and decisive action in Sacramento. Most of these differences pertaining to likely voters lay within, or just outside, the margin of error and should be considered modest. Likely voters more heavily favor (by 4 percentage points) statewide PACE School Reform Poll / Page 17 ”ma“ ”mi—W 53M 1:: my 3 ‘ , “3‘ g y a '{d fififiafi mfifiilfiflfl Egg}; 1 i V j m‘i , W :1 w aging fimm ‘ififififf? ,fl .éfi'i'fiiiaflgyfig , 3, ”h mars: 1m W36: 5“” ,‘éiffiifim inwfsz "34:: 21:94:33 339mm?! ms; 29.622. ,if » w. " v . mefiwfli'ffi ,9 33341;: Vimmfimfim} a“), 3“,“? ”“1. x :u mwgfigua *3 avast: 3 “WW {3339:3343 mm , w, ; “ii-"3:“? ,, ‘ "Ex "5 "N “ . s ' : Su 3 {i’rfiifii «xi? :3 .- ., . , 3:13; a: ,bpam fiflmfim 2:;er Z” t , 3 ,. ‘ , 32%;: g 1 *{k’idéf a?fimimi‘qafifififififiL13 32:33:; 2 3 ‘ , , 3 3:: hastmrgz‘mfia stéfilgim . M23 @3333, '3; 3:33.“ . 1 4,2,. 3' ;jw Jug“ 31% 3'13: 3‘6) , , abhmim 3311306; *ggmmw :, .2” :3: ‘ ‘4 . {33:45,} 33$me ‘ ; r; W ‘3 :20“; H3333} . 1 , . 3‘ >7? ‘1 T; standards to determine which students are promoted year to year, compared to all respondents. Heavier support among likely voters also is observed for mandatory summer school, by a margin of 4 points; lengthening the school year, by 4 points; and tougher curricular standards, by 1 point. No difference between likely voters and all respondents is observed for the proposal to create a chief inspector post in Sacramento. Likely voters are somewhat less inclined to support President Clinton‘s national exam proposal, slipping 3 points to 61% in favor (relative to 64% in favor among all Californians surveyed). Likely voters —- who tend to be middle-age or older citizens -- are more skeptical of proposals that would further decentralize the control of schools. A clear majority still favor moving control of school budgets down to the school level from the local board: 70% of likely voters, relative to 76% of all citizens surveyed. Support for easing local tax hikes for schools may be softer among likel}~ voters: 46% of all citizens favor the idea, versus just 44% among likely voters. Similarly, opposition to vouchers appears to be greater among likely voters. although the difference falls within the poll’s margin of error. Support for expanding local preschools slips by 5 points among likely voters, although still favored by a ratio of two to one. A greater share of likely voters believes that the public schools need a “major overhaul, " 67% compared to 61% of all Californians surveyed. While these older voters may have less direct contact with their local schools, they are hardened in their position of intense concern over educational quality. In turn, they back stronger action through statewide mandates. They are more doubtful over whether greater local control or market oriented reforms will be effective, relative to all Californians surveyed. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 18 __ : mummmmmw WYM gm Wm 3" {Ti gait: amiafismfiig {£393 33333133233333: 3 .3313) 31; 0M 3333.3 3133333333 33 33:33 9833:3333 WM 333m m m 3133?: 33.331 32333393133335 2333:3333 {33;{1'3 .13 32333: 3313334333: 3“ W M afirfW 5W mmimfifia”) ‘13 ‘ «33 E3 3313313333 3‘3 3333.33333333332- q 'fi WM m M fiomfm 3333:3333 23:33.3: 333333.33 3:33»??? .3 33:33:36; - W 3,333: m a! .Yyikiip he 3333133333 $3: 1:32.333» :33332333333‘323 :33 W 11W}: 33mm {2334? 33.331333333333533 33333331333 333,333,333" ”We! 33333133333393! 33331333316333: 33333333335313: :3 H3330; 33.3.1333? ‘ -3331”! 33" 2133:? 3 J .7233 3)! s. ”mum mm 3.- V. Emerging Questions for Policy Makers and Candidates Three findings are perhaps most notable, even surprising. First, Californians’ are expressing wide support for statewide mandates and a willingness to shift considerable control over schools from local boards to Sacramento. Those surveyed, and especially likely voters, are deeply worried about the state of public education. They are turning to Sacramento for decisive leadership. On several issues the state may be seen as an agent, outside the education establishment, that can perform major surgery and demand tighter accountability. The important exception is Californians’ sustained faith in local teachers, the front line educators who most citizens believe should retain discretion over pedagogical practices. This raises the issue of a disconnect -- indeed a contradiction -- between how the state could administer uniform policy remedies while still giving the classroom teacher wide latitude over how and what to teach. Political leaders and proponents of change should address this dilemma as they go about selling their particular brand of school reform. In February, Republican candidate Dan Lungren -- expressing serious reservations over whether the Unz Initiative would erode local discretion -- urged greater consistency in our political models of how schools should be run, and by whom?9 Californians seem to echo on example cited by Mr. Lungren: when voters weigh their desire for teaching children in English against sharply curtailing local discretion over pedagogy, they are split right down the middle. Second, despite a strong pitch for school vouchers, charter schools, and other market remedies -- advanced by state and national Republican leaders —— Californians are not convinced that these reforms will be effective. The British- Thatcher reform of moving budget authority down to the school is backed heavily. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 19 422%: WM”; flags 3%?» .2. 22422222931122» 2 133 ‘ : 329532322822 4 "~22, “ $333 3311me 22222222222 22:23.2: 1i it! m332 ’omw J .2‘3.‘ , _. C2.» .2? 3* aamvmam 215.2222; 2:22: 23:12: 1.2.2..s<.;'2 .2022: "12%, 2M, mm 32252311: 22222252923232 I .2:2i£232,232:2 “2213222 2232 2;? ’ .2 ' 2 : ’ ‘ ,. mam has $530222}: 2222:2222“: «:2 2 r ,2 ”222:2 52’ « ‘ ' wmbmi 22233222642252.2222 2 236122151 321? .avéi'mflw 22d E723» 2522222222,- - z )2? :‘ 2722:2313," ‘2 ' ‘ 2‘35‘2’3‘331‘ Md 3% 12302192 222$} ~52? 2‘wa‘<1‘§£2 "73" z “W V - ., : 9i 3%“ "2 NW? Hattie... 1: I2 But once public accountability is removed or reduced, as with a market oriented voucher scheme, Californians are considerably more skeptical. Finally, we see a consistent absence of faith in local school boards or administrators as forceful agents of reform. Californians -- and especially likely voters —- appear drawn to the idea of hollowing-out the education structure. They resonate to politicians’ calls for stronger mandates: to lengthen the school year, to tighten curricular standards and training requirements for new teachers, to cap local spending on administration. At the same time, those surveyed believe that teachers should retain control over pedagogy and that moving budgetary authority down to the school level is wise. In between, they want to shrink the size of district administration. And with little faith in local school boards, Californians are looking to Sacramento for the “major overhaul” of public education which they so eagerly desire. These results lead to one nagging question: If voters and legislators eventually do approve uniform policy mandates and more centralized control by Sacramento, will we come to see more effective teaching practices and rising levels of student achievement? In the coming months, candidates and political leaders should be pressed to detail how their proposals -- be they centralizing or decentralizing reform ideas —- would directly motivate teachers and boost children‘s performance. Putting forward popular signals of reform will not necessarily alter the daily life of classrooms, nor boost the rate at which our children are learningfl PACE School Reform Poll / Page 20 >5 . f 39533in :36;ng wt; *smm {33:3 aamhr: ‘m 53% xxmfiu $23 x mm zj-éuqm m; 3 :7; ' we. rimfiw :3 am wit 2% 6 my: x 8 , x 3: 3w ‘1 {’08 NF? ,3 “Ni ”M. Wax {saw Efiflfiwwhém .mm - 1% $3 1&3?“ ‘ I! 33$ 2 «'3‘ mfélwsm {1mm W12 mam ‘ him mi? aim if knémhfi ma; 33‘ sham)? m . .fi‘rsgm $33 "($31 Notes 1. Bazeley, M. (1998) Pushing for more charter schools. San Jose Mercury News, February 2. 2. See. PACE (1996) Californians ' Views on Education: Results of the PACE 1996 Poll. Berkeley: University of California. 3. For earlier surveys of how Californians view the public schools see: Field Institute (1992) The public schools: California opinion index. San Francisco, December. Also consult PACE (1996). 4. Marinucci. C. (1998) Voters set to dump bilingual education, poll shows. San Francisco Chronicle, February 10. 5. Gallup International Institute and Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. (1997) T wenty-ninth Annual Survey of the Public '5 Attitudes toward the Public Schools. Princeton, NJ. 6. Barabak. M. (1997) Bilingual education gets little support. Los Angeles Times, October 15. 7. Gallup International Institute and Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. (1997). 8. A recent [05 Angeles Times poll found overwhelming support nationally for President C limon‘s proposal to expand child-care programs by $22 billion, with 82% in favor and 16% opposed. See: Lauter, D. (1998) Americans back military strike against Iraq. Los Angeles Times, February 2. 9. La Ganga. M. & Anderson. N. (1998) Lungren joins call for more charter schools. Los Angeles T imes. February 13. PACE School Reform Poll / Page 21 33333313 3333‘; 33333333313333.3333 imnéhi ““3 .3 332’ inémfiéi 323 .3 ‘3 33333333333333 :3 333313333 33333; 33333333 33 gsl-Lw 3.333333 33333 A. 33 , 33333333333 £332 {333 3333323333333; 3333333333333: 33333;; 33 3333332333333 3333 3333:} ‘ M333 M333 3333-335 3333 ”3:33:3333333 {SW33 31;.3 , 3333333,. ".333 3333333 3333333 3333‘s, , : t”"§"c§$’{ 1’3W§?f;3§‘3‘2‘3§r Figure 1. Public schools today proVide quality education, need minor changes, or need a major overhaul? l’ercentagc All In 1,003] Women [:ll’rovide quality education Men DNeed minor changes .Need a major overhaul White [non-Latino] Latino Black () 10 2t) 30 40 50 60 70 l’ull sample, n~—l,003 adults. Margin ol‘error is *+/— 3 percentage points. PACIC and the Field Institute, March 1998. [Q43] ‘ w “my m :03" m; 'b 9%: 5,333. 012 a é“); v : 3: Figure 2. Who do you trust most... to reform schools and raise children's achievement? Percentage All [n r003] 4%?4fim4u*¢2 an El 1) a re n ts Ej'l‘eachers Democrats .Local School Board .Sacramento Republicans 0 l() 20 30 40 50 l“ull sample, ir'l ,003 adults. Margin ol‘error is t/— 3 percentage points. PACE and the l’ield Institute, March 1998. [Q44] wfimwflmg .- . O g , .wuawmw Figure 3. Who do you trust most... in setting teacher competency standards, student promotion requirements, and teaching methods? Percentage 'l‘eacher competency standards [:1 Parents Lj'l‘eachers I Local school board Student promotion requirements I Sacramento mtwamwm r “w ‘1 '45: ~ 3* “W3 mammwwmnaam'mrgm ‘53“7/Imfé’ Teaching methods () 1(7) 20 30 40 50 llalt‘sample, 113510 adults. Margin ol‘error is +/— 4.5 percentage points. l’ACli and the l’ield Institute, March 1998. [Q49a. b, c] mg x mm § Mm» $3 33 ”WE bu $10 an “cg V _. Magyar-Von» v .11}; ,.. ,~ . Cu: ~ 3‘ . . . a W . ~ A FE... g,» «THE may“. a a mu gm Figure 4. Do you l‘avor President Clinton's proposal for national exams? Percentage All (‘alilornians Democrats Republicans White limit—Latino] [3% Favoring proposal Latinos Blacks Conservatives Moderates Liberals O 20 4O 60 80 llall‘samplc, 117510 adults. Margin ol‘error is t/— 4.5 percentage points. PACli and the Field Institute, March 1998. [Q47] ‘ {£711 2 I $1393.}! # n», 3 51‘4"" , f? Q‘fi‘afi‘; .; ,_~ xx, 9..” 3 § ,, ‘ ,, i -. N - . ” "av ‘. ‘ M; q. « m M, -f . v 0'“. 4| Figure 5. For students with limited English, do you favor local control over how best to teach, o ‘ a unil‘orm statewide policy? Percentage All (‘alilornians Democrats . .Local discretion Republicans _ . . .Uniform stateWIde policy CINot sure White [non-Latino] Latinos Blacks 0 l() 20 30 40 50 60 Full sample, nil,003 adults. Margin ol‘crror is +/— 3 percentage points. PACE and the Field Institute, March 1998. [Q45] - was» a , at!- a» «m» mafia ow .sn, 93w .9. _ .. a Tfi n :num‘xfi.” mm T53: THE: .5 $12» mafimm Figure (3. Support for statewide policies enforced from Sacramento Percentage Student promotion requirements Mandatory summer school -% l’avoring proposal Challenging curricular standards Chief school inspector Lengthening the school year 0 20 40 60 80 100 llalf sample, 117—510 adults. Margin oi‘error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. PACE and the Field Institute, March 1998. [Q46a-e] a. 8?: {3; if. i‘ :33 gins my " ‘5‘“ nu I'w », m Figure 7. Support for decentralized school reform proposals Percentage Moving power to school level Simple majority for tax hikes [3% Favoring proposal Expanding charter schools Vouchers for private schools Expanding local preschools () 20 40 6O 80 100 Half sample, nr":51() adults. Margin ot‘error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. PACE and the Field Institute, March 1998. [Q48a—e] :15 Hal 5 :3. 3;: . Kit 1}??? : < ::*2' f Figure 8. Slight partisan dit‘l‘erences in support of statewide mandates from Sacramento Percentage Student promotion requirements Mandatory summer school [13% Democrats favoring ‘ - - 0/ l' ' ' i ( hallenging curricular standards - ° RCPUb leans favorlng Chief school inspector lengthening the school year 0 20 40 ()0 80 l ()0 llalt‘sample‘ n 510 adults. Margin ot‘error is +/— 4.5 percentage points. l’AC‘li and the Field Institute, March 1998. [7046‘] Saga wvmfififlm g 35 w , a \ 2 8mm “4:qu . @53339 M i 5:3 «722., 1.5 ti. 1, & ML?” I «WAN? rm: E Figure 9. Wider partisan dil‘l‘erences in support of, or Opposition to, decentralized rel‘orm proposals Percentage Ell-11‘!" Moving power to school level Simple majority lor tax hikes -% Democrats favoring ‘ . 0 . e . , laxpandmg charter schools - /0 Republicans favoring Vouchers for private schools [Expanding local preschools 0 20 40 60 80 100 llall‘samplc, 1115 l 0 adults. Margin ol‘error is +/— 4.5 percentage points. PACE and the Field Institute, March 1998. [Q48] 3 .W Sawflmwzm mm .Qmfif . 33m m3?“ a]; «9:, w, w m: an; 3 $2, 2. UC EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ CLL‘IEH'HJBS