Rossier Schoo‘ ' fwd " ' PACE Californians and Public Education: Results from the Fourth PACE/USC Rossier Poll Morgan Polikoff Julie Marsh David N. Plank Michelle Hall Tenice Hardaway Tien Le PACE USC Rossier School of Education 3% http://www.edpolicyinca.org ' «J . ERN srumgs HBRARi/AENTAL EFT? Ill 9041 1-” 1U LUI/ UNIVERSITY OF CALlFORNlA alifornia is in the middle of a nearly unprecedented pe— riod of change in the state’s education system. Following voter approval of Proposition 30 in 2012, the Legislature adopted the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013. The LCFF upended the way California funds schools, redis— tributing revenues toward schools and school districts facing the great— est challenges and shifting control over the allocation of revenues from Sacramento to local educators and their communities. The decentral- ization of authority and responsibil— ity brought about by the LCFF is reflected in the state’s new account- ability system. The centerpiece of the new system is the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), which must be developed in consulta— tion with parents, teachers, and the broader community. The LCAP ties decisions about the use of resources directly to local strategies for educa- tional improvement, rather than fo— cusing on student test scores as the sole or even primary criterion for educational performance. Along with radically new school fi— nance and accountability policies California is simultaneously mov— ing forward with the most ambi- tious transformation of standards and assessments in a generation. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the associated Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium ’— I z <.,_ ; - ,7 ~- .. "w" r ;/‘1 ) i2; (SBAC) assessments promise greatly improved instruction and deeper learning for all California students, but successful implementation of the new standards will require major changes in curricula, instructional materials, teacher training, and pro— fessional development, among many other things. The courts have also weighed in on education policy issues in Califor— nia. The recent decision in the Ver— gam v. State of California case would require the state to rethink state and local policies on several key ele— ments of teacher employment policy including “teacher tenure” and the rules for teacher dismissal. How much do California voters know about the policy changes that are transforming their education system, and what are their views about the direction in which the state is moving? In this report we present findings from the latest Poli— cy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education poll. The poll was con— ducted by MFour Research/Tulchin Research in June 2014. It surveyed California voters’ knowledge and opinions about the quality of the state education system, CCSS, the Vergam case and teacher employ— ment policies, LCFF, and charter schools. CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL PACE This is the fourth in a series of PACE/ USC Rossier polls. Findings from our earlier polls were summarized in policy reports in 2013 (http://www. edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/ PACE USC Poll Dec 2013_FINAL. pdf) and 2012 (http://www.edpoli— cyinca. org/ sites/ default/ files/ PACE USC Poll Aug 2012.pdf). Findings from all PACE/USC Rossier polls are available on the PACE web— site (http://www.edpolicyinca.org/ polls). Results Show Positive Trend in Attitudes toward California and its Schools The poll finds that voter attitudes about the direction of the state and the performance of public schools are relatively low but growing more positive. When asked whether Cali— fornia is on the right or wrong track, 35 percent of respondents report that California is on the right track (see Figure 1). This is a 4 percentage point increase from the 2013 poll results and a 13 percentage point increase from 2012. However, there is a sharp partisan divide on this question — 50 percent of Democrats think the state is on the right track as compared to just 16 percent of Republicans. Figure 1. Is California on the Right or Wrong Track? Question 3. Generally speaking, would you say the state of California is on the right track, or would you say things are off on the wrong track? 2012 w u . g: I Right Track '8 600/0 I Wrong Track 8 i§ Unsure 9.: 3 40% M L... O E 200/0 0 U 33‘ h 0% 2013 2014 Figure 2. Governor Brown’s Education Approval Rating handling education in California? Question 8. Would you say you approve or disapprove of how Governor Jerry Brown is 13 G o "g 60% O §‘ 40% 95 H.‘ 3 20% 5 g 0% h All White Latino/Hispanic Black/ Asian/ African American Pacific Islander I Approve 45 44 49 58 39 I Disapprove 38 40 34 28 34 Voters Report Higher Approval for the Governor, Lower for the President Compared to previous polls, more California voters approve of Gov— ernor Jerry Brown’s handling of education issues. When asked spe- cifically about Governor Brown’s handling of education, 45 percent of respondents approved, compared to 42 percent in the 2013 poll. Con— versely, 38 percent of respondents disapproved of Brown’s handling of education, an 8—point drop com— pared to 2013. Across racial/ethnic groups, black/African American respondents are the most positive about Governor Brown’s handling of education (see Figure 2). The positive trend in Governor Brown’s education approval ratings are not mirrored for President Obama. Ap— proval of the President’s educational performance fell from 51 percent in 2013 to 45 percent this year. CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL Voters Convey More Positive Atti- tudes toward California’s Schools Californians are also more positive than before about the quality of the state’s public schools. When asked to rate on a scale of 0—10 how Cali— fornia’s public schools are perform— ing in a variety of areas, voters gave higher scores in all areas compared to the 2013 poll (see Table 1). Voters report that the state’s public schools are doing a better job at teaching students basic skills, offering extra— curricular activities, holding schools accountable, and preparing students for a four-year university. Voters be- lieve that the area in which schools are doing the best job is teaching students the basics of reading, writ- ing, and math (6.2 on the 0—t0—10 scale). Poll results indicate that voters on average are more positive than be— fore about the quality of public schools. Although the majority of voters continue to rate the state’s Table 1. California School Performance Ratings public schools poorly, the poll finds that these negative attitudes are soft- ening. The 2014 poll finds that 21 percent of voters believe that their local public schools have “gotten better” in the past few years, which is a 10 percentage point increase since our 2012 poll. Similarly, the percent of respondents indicating their local public schools have got— ten worse decreased 11 percentage points in that time. Questions 15—24. How would you rate the job California’s public schools do in the following areas? Please score each area from 0-10, where 10 is a perfect score and the state does an excellent job, 0 is the worst score and means the state is doing a terrible job, and 5 means the state is doing a mediocre job. 2012 2013 2014 Teaching students the basics of reading, writing and math 5.0 5.1 6.2 Preparing students for a four-year university 4.3 4.1 5.9 Offering career technical and vocational education to students who need an alternative to a four-year university 3.9 4.1 5.9 Providing parents with a choice of public schools to send their child 4.2 3.7 5.8 Ensuring every student has a quality teacher 4.1 4.1 5.4 Holding principals, teachers, and parents accountable for student performance 4.3 4.1 5.4 Preparing students for good paying jobs 4.0 4.0 5.3 Providing adequate funding for local schools, students and classrooms 4.2 3.7 5.3 Ofl’ering music, art, drama, sports and other extracurricular activities 4.1 3.7 5.2 Not spending too much money on bureaucracy 3.4 3.3 5.0 CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL 3 PACE Voters Know More about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Like Them Less The Common Core State Standards detail what K—12 students should know and be able to do in English language arts and mathematics at the end of each grade. The standards seek to establish consistent expecta— tions across states. The CCSS are expected to be fully implemented in more than 40 states in the 2014—15 school year. Since our last poll in 2013, Califor— nia voters have become more knowl— edgeable about the CCSS. Cur— rently, 53 percent of voters report not knowing much or not knowing anything about the new standards, compared to 71 percent of respon- dents in 2013 (see Figure 3). Parents with school—aged children are more likely to be informed about the new standards compared to voters who do not identify as parents of school— aged children. Opposition to the Standards is Higher than Support As their knowledge about the stan— dards increases, California voters’ Figure 3. Familiarity with the Common Core, 2013-14 attitudes toward them have become Forty—four percent of voters have somewhat (30 percent) or very (14 percent) nega— tive feelings about CCSS, while 38 percent have somewhat (32 percent) increasingly negative. or very (6 percent) positive feelings about the standards (see Figure 4). There is a sharp partisan split in at— titudes toward CCSS, with a 47/34 positive/ negative split among Dem— ocrats and a 30/ 56 split among Re- publicans. The poll also revealed a sharp split by respondent age, with a 36/51 positive/ negative split among voters 65 and older and 44/40 split for voters 18—29 years old. the Common Core State Standards? Question 31. California has recently adopted the Common Core State Standards for California schools. How much do you know about I don’t know anything I don’t know much I know a little bit 1 know a very good deal 0% 5% l l I 10% 15% 20% 25% .2013 .2014 I l l 30% 35% 40% 45% Percent of Respondents Who Agree with the Statement Figure 4. Impressions of the Common Core, 2014 Question 32. Based on what you know about Common Core, do you have a positive or negative impression? 40% m 8 ° 5 30% E '3 200/ 8 o ° 3 g- 10% a: 00/0 ;\ s \ .- Very positive Somewhat positive Somewhat negative Very negative Don’t know I Democrats 9 38 27 7 20 I Republicans 4 26 35 21 14 All 6 32 30 14 18 CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL After reading statements both in support of and in opposition to im— plementing CCSS (shown below in Table 2), our 2014 poll finds that 41 percent of voters indicate that the standards should not be implement— ed, while 32 percent of voters believe that they should be. In 2013, when provided similar statements about the adoption of CCSS, the response was 36 percent in favor of and 25 percent opposed. Responses to the current poll also vary by race and age. Blacks/African Americans were the only racial/ethnic group with net support for the standards on this question. Interestingly, though the youngest age group in our poll had the most positive feelings towards CCSS, they were most strongly op- Table 2. Support for “Arguments for and against” Common Core posed to the implementation of the standards after reading the state— ments. While 48 percent of voters in the 18—29 age group opposed the implementation, just 36 percent of 30—39 year—olds opposed it. Question 33. Here is a pair of statements about whether or not California should implement the Common Core State Standards. Please read the following and indicate which statement you agree with most: All White Black/ African American Latino/ Hispanic Asian/ Age Age Age Pacific ' 18—29 30—39 40—49 Islander Sample Size (N) 1,005 675 172 64 84 107 132 218 Percent of Respondents (%) California is right to imple— ment the CCSS because they provide a clear, consistent understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teach— ers and parents know what they need to do to help them. These standards have been adopted by California and 45 other states. 32 29 35 46 33 27 37 34 California should not imple— ment the CCSS because they represent a Washington, DC.- based, one—size—fits—all approach that increases our reliance on standardized testing and does not take account of regional and classroom realities. Many states that have adopted the CCSS are now re—evaluating their decision. Arguments for and against CCSS 41 ’ 42 42 32 35 48 36 41 Can’t say/ Don’t know 27 29 23 22 31 25 27 25 CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL PACE Although these low levels of sup— port may indicate trouble for CCSS implementation, the large numbers of voters unfamiliar with or uncer— tain about their views suggests that there is considerable room for pub— lic opinion on this issue to continue to change in the future. In 2014, 53 percent of respondents report know— ing nothing or not much about the standards. Further, 27 percent of voters did not know whether or not they wanted to support the new standards after reading the state— ments for and against. Given that the plurality of voters appears to op— pose the CCSS, the implementation of the CCSS may be met with op— position unless the public—partic— ularly this large bloc of unfamiliar and uncertain voters—is convinced of the need for the new standards. Voters Strongly Support the Vergam Decision In May 2012, nine California stu— dents filed suit against the state of California (Vergara v. State of Cali— fbmia) challenging “teacher tenure” and “last in, first out” policies. Ten— ure laws provide teachers with the right to contest any case brought against them for dismissal. In Cali- fornia, public school teachers with a positive recommendation from their supervisors are awarded tenure after 18 months in the classroom. Cali— fornia also operates under a “last in, first out” policy by which teacher lay- offs rely on seniority; when districts are faced with budget cuts, teachers with the least seniority must be laid off first. The plaintiffs argued that “teacher tenure” and “last in, first out” policies in California dispro- portionately deprived low-income, minority students of quality teach— ers, thus violating their state consti- tutional right to equal educational opportunity. The two largest teacher unions in California, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), voluntarily joined the de- fense. On June 10, 2014, presiding Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled these poli— cies unconstitutional. Poll results indicate that voters strongly support the Vergam deci— sion. Sixty—three percent of respon- dents had at least heard of the Ver- gam case (see Figure 5), with more educated Californians more likely to be familiar with the case. Of the respondents who knew of the case, 62 percent agreed with the judge’s decision. Here again, there was a partisan split — 75 percent of Re- publicans agreed with the ruling as compared with 52 percent of Dem- ocrats. Figure 5. Familiarity with the Vergara Lawsuit Never heard/ read about it Not heard/ read much about it All Heard/ read a good deal about it 10 Heard/ read a little bit about it 32 Not heard/ read much about it 21 Never heard/ read about it 37 Question 42. Have you recently heard or read about a court case (Vergara v. California) in which a judge ruled California’s teacher tenure rules violate the state constitution? Percent of Total Respondents Non-College Graduate College Graduate Heard/ read a good deal about it Heard/ read a little bit about it 4 17 27 36 25 16 44 31 CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL Voters Oppose “Last in, First out” and Teacher Tenure The poll also asked about specific elements of the policies challenged by the Vergam plaintiffs. When asked about the “last in, first out” policy using the wording shown in Figure 6, 68 percent agreed that the policy should be removed “be— cause it hurts students by requiring school administrators to lay off tal— ented young teachers before low— performing senior teachers,” while less than a quarter believed that the policy should remain because “the policy creates job stability that en— ables school districts to attract and retain quality teachers, despite low pay and difficult working condi- tions.” Support for ending “last in, first out” was strong across all po— litical affiliations, age, and racial/ ethnic groups. The poll also asked two questions about teacher tenure. The first question described tenure using the wording shown in Figure 6 and asked whether teachers should re— ceive it. Just 25 percent agreed that “We should keep tenure for public school teachers because it protects them from being fired based on personal or political reasons, pre- vents schools from firing more ex- perienced teachers to hire younger, less expensive teachers, and allows teachers freedom to teach potential- ly controversial topics without fear of reprisal.” In contrast, 61 percent agreed that “Public school teachers should not receive tenure because the policy makes it extremely dif- ficult to fire poorly performing teachers, so that many California school children, particularly those in economically challenged school districts get stuck with poor teach— ers year after year.” Figure 6. Attitudes toward “Last in, First out” and Teacher Tenure with most: Question 40. California schools currently operate under a “Last in, First out” policy, meaning layoffs are dictated by seniority and the most recently hired teachers are always laid off first. Please read the following two statements and indicate which one you agree with most: Question 41. California Public school teachers who receive a positive recommendation from supervisors are currently awarded “tenure” after 18 months in the classroom. Teachers without tenure can be terminated for any reason. Tenured teachers can only be terminated for just cause, and they are entitled to due process protections that give them the right to contest the case against them. Which of the two positions do you agree Percent of Respondents Last in, First out Tenure I Keep 17 25 . Remove 68 61 1 5 14 Next, the poll asked specifically about the length of time to tenure. With more options, only 35 per— cent said teachers should not receive tenure, while 38 percent said two years is simply too soon for tenure to be awarded. On this question, just 21 percent indicated support for the status quo of tenure within two years. This finding suggests that public support for teacher tenure might be stronger if there were a longer probationary period. In addition to strong overall support for removing tenure and seniority protections, respondents are wary of the impact of teacher unions on education. In fact, 49 percent of re- spondents report that they believe that teacher unions have a very (22 percent) or somewhat (27 percent) negative impact on education in California, as compared to 31 per— cent who think they have a very (6 percent) or somewhat (25 percent) positive impact. Although support for the Vergam decision is strong across all demo- graphic groups included in this sur— vey: ° Republicans are the strongest supporters of removing teacher tenure (72 percent) and “last in, first out” policies (83 percent). 0 Younger voters (18—29) were more likely to support tenure (49 percent oppose, 30 percent sup— port) than 65 and older voters (64 percent oppose, 23 percent support). CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL PACE LCFF Does Not Guarantee Political Engagement LCFF replaces California’s state— controlled school finance system with a system that provides more flexibility and local control and re— quires more community input. Un— der the old system, school districts received approximately two-thirds of their revenues as general—purpose funding based on complex histori— cal formulas, and about one—third through regulated categorical pro— grams. The LCFF awards districts a uniform base grant, determined by grade level. Districts are given addi— tional funds for each student from a high—needs group (low income, English—learning, and foster youth), and even more funds if more than 55 percent of a district’s enroll— ment includes these high—needs students (see Figure 7). According to the law, local districts must de— cide how to spend LCFF funding with input from local stakeholders. They are also required to adopt and publicly share LCAPs that disclose how funds will be spent, assuring that they align with the state’s eight education priorities. These areas in— clude student achievement, student engagement, parental involvement, school climate, basic services, im— plementing Common Core, course access, and other student outcomes. Californians are Unaware of the LCF F In an ongoing trend identified in 2013 by the PACE/USC Rossier poll, LCFF awareness continues to be a challenge for the state and local districts. Despite the release of draft regulations by the Department of Education and the submission of 1,000 LCAPs, voters report being uninformed about the LCFF. Over— all, just 24 percent of all registered voters and 28 percent of parents re— port having heard or read a little to a good deal about the new fiinding system. In contrast, a large major— ity of voters (approximately 76 per— cent) have not heard or read much about LCFF or have never heard or read about LCFF (see Figure 8). While these results indicate a slight increase in public awareness since 2013 (note that the polling ques— tion was worded differently and cannot be directly compared), the trends show a need for more focus by state and local actors on educat- ing and engaging stakeholders in the process. Figure 7. Overview of Local Control Funding Formulaa Formula Component Target base rates (per ADA)b Base rare adjustments Supplemental funding for certain Concentration funding Add—ons aApplies to school districts and charter schools. in 2013—14. free or reduced—price meal). student subgroups (per EL/LI student and foster youth) bReflects target rates as specified in statute. Does not include 1.57 percent cost—of—living adjustment provided ADA = average daily attendance; EL = English learner; and LI = low—income (defined as a student receiving a Rates/Rules ° K—3: $6,845 - 4—6: $6,947 ' 7—8: $7,154 ' 9—12: $8,289 ' K—B: 10.4 percent of base rate. ' 9—12: 2.6 percent of base rate. 20 percent of adjusted base rate. Each EL/LI student above 55 percent of enrollment generates an additional 50 percent of adjusted base rate. Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant, Home—to—School Transportation, Economic Recovery Target. Source: California Legislative Analyst’s Office Figure 8. 2014 Voter Awareness of LCFF public schools are funded? Question 34. In the past six months, have you heard or read anything about a policy called the Local Control Funding Formula, which changes the way California K-12 Never heard/ read about it Not heard/ read much about it Heard/ read a little bit about it Heard/ read a good deal about it I Parents I All 0% Percent of Respondents l I 1 20% 30% 400/0 50% a CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL Whereas the polls indicate a moder- ate increase in public awareness over the past year, the governor and state legislature have moved on to other policy priorities and left the LCFF implementation and public aware— ness campaign responsibilities to the California State Board of Edu— cation and local districts. In 2012, the governor stumped for Proposi- tion 30, which provided for a tem— porary quarter—of-a—percent increase in sales tax for four years starting in January 2013 and increased income taxes on Californians who earned at least $250,000 by up to three per— centage points for seven years. On the heels of his victory with Prop— osition 30, the governor focused on the passage of the LCFF, dra— matically revamping the way K—12 education is funded in California. Unfortunately, polls indicated that back in 2013 few Californians were aware of the new law’s passage, and since then awareness has lagged be- hind expectations. The polls suggest an uphill battle for local and state policy makers to increase commu— nity awareness of the LCFF, and stakeholder engagement as required by law. Voter Impressions of the LCFF are More Positive than Negative Despite the lack of awareness, the most recent poll points to increas- ingly favorable impressions of the LCFF among all California vot- ers. Overall, 2014 voters across all demographics consistently report more positive than negative views of LCFF: almost half (47 percent) reported a very (8 percent) or some- what (39 percent) positive impres— sion, while less than a third reported a negative impression of the LCFF; the rest were unsure (see Table 3). Results on a similar item also indi- cate favorable views. When provided with more details about the LCFF, a plurality of voters (40 percent) con— tinued to report a positive impres- sion of the new funding system, with the remaining impressions be— ing negative (31 percent) or unsure (30 percent). This year’s poll showed more voter support for LCFF com- pared to last year, when voters were asked a similarly worded question. In fact, last year voters were more evenly split on their impressions of LCFF (30 percent positive, 31 per— cent negative), indicating that pub— lic support for the policy may be increasing. Table 3. Views on the LCFF, 2014 vs. 2013 Local Control Funding Formula approach? Very positive Somewhat positive Somewhat negative Very negative Not sure/Don’t know Question 35. Based on what you know, do you ave a posrtive or negative impressmn o 0/o c All Parents 8 7 39 38 27 25 3 3 23 26 Can’t sa lRefuse school districts will have the greatest impact. equally among all school districts, not a select few. Neither I don’t know Question 36. Here is a pair of statements about the “Local Control Funding Formula” plan, which sets standards for how school districts spend education dollars and prioritizes funding for school districts with more high-needs students, such as English language learners and low-income students. Please indicate which statement you agree with most: Local Control Funding Formula plan is a good idea because all California public schools will get more money than they received last year, parents will have more say in 40 38 how school district money is spent and school districts with the highest concentration of high—needs students will get additional funds to spend as they need. Local Control Funding Formula is a bad idea because it allows the state to take local tax money from local school districts and give it to a select few districts around the state. California education dollars should be shared equally and we shouldn’t be raid- ing funding from some districts to disproportionately benefit others. Question 30. Not everyone agrees with Governor Brown’s Local Control Funding Formula approach. Please read the following statements and indicate which you agree with most: Mary says the Governor’s Local Control Funding Formula plan is a good idea because all California public schools will get more money than they received last year, but school districts with the highest concentrations of high-needs students will get 30 30 additional funds to spend as they need, because concentrating fimds on these critical Sally says the Governor’s Local Control Funding Formula is a bad idea because only some school districts will benefit, while other districts, even if they have high-needs students and middle class communities that saw substantial cuts during the recession, 31 37 won’t get any of the additional funds. California education dollars should be shared 31 33 30 30 18 16 21 17 CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL PACE There is Strong Support for Pa- rental Involvement Requirements of the LCFF The LCFF policy grants school dis— tricts more authority than before to decide how to spend their state funding allocations and to create local accountability goals. The in— creased flexibility and local control, however, come with a requirement that districts engage local stakehold- ers, including parents and teachers, in the allocation of these funds and the development of LCAPs. The most recent poll indicates strong support for this provision: approxi— mately two-thirds of voters report approving of this LCFF require— ment (see Figure 9). Few Voters are Aware of or Have Attended LCFF Meetings While a majority of California vot— ers and parents agree that parental engagement is a positive require— ment of the LCF F, few have actually engaged. The ability of LCFF to deliver on its promise of increased stakeholder engagement and im— proved student outcomes will de— pend in part on the extent to which parents, teachers and community members participate in the process and encourage local school boards and superintendents to set ambitious goals and make judicious spending decisions. Thus, it is essential that Californians interested in improv- ing education for the state’s children understand the new system and their responsibilities in contributing to its success. Though the polls indicate a slight increase in public awareness, few stakeholders report being en— gaged in LCFF activities. Only 12 percent of parents and 8 percent of voters report being aware of or at— tending an LCFF planning meet— ing, while over two—thirds of both groups report being unaware of any LCFF meetings taking place in their districts (see Figure 10). This poses a challenge to local and state policy makers alike to ensure that the new policy fulfills the needs of the local community. It also indicates a need for more communication and out— reach. Figure 9. Support for the LCFF’s Parental Involvement Requirements Question 37. The new Local Control Funding Formula policy requires that school districts work with parents to determine the allocation of district education resources and accountability standards. Do you approve or disapprove of this approach? Don’t know Disapprove Approve l I 096 1096 2096 I 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of Respondents - Parents I All l I Figure 10. Voter Awareness of and Attendance at LCFF Planning Meetings Formula money? Question 38. Have you been invited to, been made aware of, or participated in a planning meeting or event related to how schools should spend Local Control Funding Unsure Not aware of Yes, but did not attend meeting Yes, and attended meeting l 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent of Respondents I Parents I All I l I l l CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL Voters Indicate Low Levels of Involvement in Education Overall Beyond the requirement of parent involvement in LCAP development, the LCFF policy requires districts to focus resources on engaging parents in the process of setting education priorities. One of the eight state pri— ority areas to which LCAPs must be aligned is parent involvement. The regulations require parental involve- ment, defined as “including efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each individ— ual school site, and including how the school district will promote pa— rental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs” (Priority 3). The most recent poll results indi— cate that increasing parent involve— ment in educational activities may be challenging. While 38 percent of registered voters report voting in school board elections, 10 percent attend school board meetings, and less than 20 percent volunteer in their local public schools (see Figure 11). Significantly, only 40 percent of parents report voting in school board elections, 21 percent attend school board meetings, and less than 40 percent volunteer in their local public school. The historic lack of community involvement in educa- tion presents a tremendous chal— lenge to local districts that are now required by law to not only seek but Figure l 1. Community Participation in Local School District Activities Question 56. Do you do any of the following? Percent Reporting Yes Attend school board and/or other education related meetings 70% I All 0 __ 60 /O I Parents 50% — Vote in school board elections Volunteer at public schools include community input in their education policies moving forward. While LCFF grants local districts substantially increased flexibility as to where they spend their resources, embedded in the law is a significant role for parents and other commu- nity members. These poll results indicate there is substantial room for improving public awareness of LCFF and engagement in LCFF— related activities. Questions about the stability of public support re— main for this policy when so many Californians report their own lack of engagement. Involving parents and the broader community in the process of setting and achieving lo- cal district priorities is an important key to LCFF success. How this lack of engagement will affect the ongo— ing policy implementation is not yet certain. Voters Have Misconceptions about Charter Schools Charter schools are independently operated public schools that are al- lowed more autonomy than tradi— tional public schools. Since 1991, the number of charter schools has rapidly grown nationwide and now accounts for about 6 percent of all public schools in the US Accord- ing to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, California currently has over 1,000 charter schools, one—sixth of all public char— CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL PACE ter schools in the nation. Poll results indicate that voters believe they generally have a good understand— ing of charter schools. Over two- thirds of the respondents report that their general knowledge of charter schools is a little to somewhat good, while only 20 percent report that they do not know much at all. Despite claims of knowledge about charters, voters harbor a number of misconceptions about the char— ter sector. For example, although prohibited from charging tuition, 21 percent charter schools are of respondents believe that charter schools can charge tuition, and 42 percent replied that they did not know (see Figure 12). Similarly, when asked what charter schools do when they have more student appli- cants than available spaces, 20 per— cent responded that charter schools can select the students they prefer, even though this is not allowed by law (see Figure 13). Another charter schools was surfaced by a misconception about question about charter school ef- fectiveness. While recent, rigorous research shows that charter schools in California (CREDO, 2014) and across the nation (CREDO, 2013) perform no better or worse than traditional public schools, poll re- spondents believe charter schools are considerably more effective. Forty—five percent of respondents CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL Figure 12. Misconceptions about Charter School Tuition Question 47. To the best of your knowledge, can charter schools charge for tuition? I Parents I All Yes Don’t know I I I I l 0% 1 0% 20% 30% Percent of Respondents I I I I 40% 50% Figure 13. Misconceptions about Charter School Admissions Policies Question 48. To the best of your knowledge, when there are more applicants to a charter school than there are spaces available, how do charter schools decide which students to enroll? I Parents I All Charters select students Charters hold a lottery Don’t know 1 I I I l I 00/0 1 0% 20% 30% Percent of Respondents I I l 40% 50% Figure 14. Misconceptions about Charter School Effectiveness Question 46. To the best of your knowledge, do students who attend charter schools perform better, about the same or worse on stan— dardized tests than students who attend traditional public schools? 70% 60% _ 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% ~ Percent of Respondents 10% *- 0% Charter students perform better Charter students perform the same Charter students perform worse I Republicans I Democrats Unsure believe that charter school students do better on standardized tests than traditional public school students, compared to 21 percent who be- lieve charter and traditional public school students perform the same and just 4 percent who believe that traditional public school students do better (see Figure 14). There is a partisan split in beliefs about the effectiveness of charter schools, with a 59/3 better/worse split among Re— publicans about the performance of charter school students compared to traditional public school students, and a 36/ 4 better/worse split among Democrats. In short, while voters believe that they have a good under— standing of charter schools, they ap— pear to hold significant misconcep— tions about the charter sector. Conclusions The state of public opinion on education issues revealed in the 2014 PACE/USC Rossier poll of- fers reasons for both optimism and concern. On the one hand, voters’ perceptions of California’s public school system are significantly more positive on a variety of dimensions than they have been in recent years. On the other hand, however, many voters are unfamiliar with the radi- cal changes that are underway in the state’s education system, and support for these changes among those who know something about them is lukewarm at best. This is especially true when it comes to the Common Core State Standards. Public awareness of the CCSS has increased in the past year, but this increase in awareness has been ac— companied by a deterioration in public support. Public support for the Local Control Funding Formula is somewhat stronger, but relatively few voters are familiar with the new finance system and even fewer have engaged in local LCFF deliberations or planning activities. Building and sustaining public support for these policy initiatives will require more aggressive efforts by state and local leaders to inform voters about the policies that are now in place and the benefits that they promise for California students. Otherwise the public may turn against these re— forms, as has already begun to hap— pen with the CCSS. CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL 13 PACE Survey Methodology CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL MFour Research and Tulchin Re— search surveyed 1,005 registered California voters using an online format. Voters used a variety of preferred Internet—connected de- vices, including desktops, lap— tops, tablets and smartphones, to complete the survey. In the case of each device, the layout of question presentation was altered slightly to accommodate screen real estate. We controlled and weighted the data based on party, age, ethnic— ity, gender, geography, and edu— cation to obtain percentages for these demographics that matched the population of registered Cali- fornia voters and an estimated voter turnout for the 2014 Gen— eral Election. The survey was completed in English and Spanish based on voter preference. The survey was administered from June 19 to June 22, 2014. We used an online panel provider to obtain our sample. Panelists were recruited from a reputable panel provider and invited to complete surveys typically by e— mail notification or “push notifi- cation” in exchange for minimal monetary compensation (i.e., $050—$075), in the form of re- deemable points. The panel provider ensured pan— elist identity and that IP address— es were legitimate from people wishing to become panelists. Also, panelists were screened for completing a large number of surveys and showing undesirable behavior such as inconsistent re- sponding or “speeding” through surveys. The margin of error for the entire survey is estimated to be +/— 3.5 percent at a 95 percent confi— dence interval. Some questions in the poll were administered to roughly equal halves of the samples, i.e., split samples, which produces larger margins of error. Acknowledgments The PACE/USC Rossier polls are funded by PACE and the Univer— sity of Southern California Rossier School of Education. The poll was designed by Julie Marsh, David N. Plank, and Morgan Polikoff, with Jeff Harrelson of MFour Research, and Ben Tulchin of Tulchin Re— search. We would like to thank the Califor— nia Education Policy Fund (a spon- sored project of Rockefeller Phi- lanthropy Advisors), the Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation, the Noyce Foundation, and the Stu— art Foundation for financial support for the publication of this report. The Views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessar— ily reflect the views of PACE, USC Rossier School of Education, or the funders. About the Authors Morgan Polikoff is Assistant Profes— sor at the Rossier School of Educa— tion, University of Southern Cali- fornia. Julie Marsh is Associate Professor at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. She is a Director of PACE. David N. Plank is the Executive Director of PACE, and a Professor (Research) at the Graduate School of Education, Stanford University. Michelle Hall is Dean’s Fellow in Urban Education at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Tenice Hardaway is Dean’s Fellow in Urban Education at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Tien Le is Dean’s Fellow in Urban Education at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL PACE About Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) Policy Analysis for California Edu— cation is an independent, non- partisan research center based at Stanford University, the University of California, Berkeley, the Uni- versity of Southern California, and the University of California, Davis. PACE seeks to define and sustain a long—term strategy for comprehen— sive policy reform and continuous improvement in performance at all levels of California’s education sys— tem, from early childhood to post— secondary education and training. PACE bridges the gap between research and policy, working with scholars from California’s leading universities and with state and local policymakers to increase the impact of academic research on educational policy in California. http://www. edpolz'cyz'nca. org CALIFORNIANS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: RESULTS FROM THE FOURTH PACE/USC ROSSIER POLL About the USC Rossier School of Education The USC Rossier School of Educa— tion (ross—EAR) is one of the world’s premier centers for the study of ur- ban education, preparing teachers, educational leaders and scholars who are committed to strengthen— ing urban education locally, nation— ally and globally. USC Rossier is the school behind the first online Master of Arts in Teaching program from a major research university, which has increased the number of highly prepared teachers graduating from USC Rossier by tenfold in less than three years. http://www. 7055i€71 1456‘. 6d“ U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES Cll‘WUUlSE’ PACE http://www.edpolicyinca.org Rossier School 01‘ Education http://www.rossier.usc.edu