David Plank / commentary
Oct xv, 2012

David Plank

David Plank

California voters understand that their schools are in trouble. 40-two percentage of voters give the state's schools a form of D or F, while fewer than 15 percentage give them an A or B. Fifty-seven percent of voters believe that California schools have gotten worse in the past few years, and simply 7 percent believe that they take gotten better.

Voters also recognize that their schools are not fairly funded. More than forty percent charge per unit the state'due south efforts to provide "adequate funding for local schools, students and classrooms" at 3 or beneath on a 10-bespeak scale, with 47 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of "decline to state" voters sharing this view. Simply 19 percent of voters (16 percent of Republicans, xv percent of DTS) give the land a score of 7 or higher. Democrats, surprisingly, are somewhat more cheerful well-nigh school funding, with 27 percentage giving the state a rating of 7 or college and but 32 percentage a rating of 3 or lower.

These findings come up from a poll in August sponsored past Policy Analysis for California Education (Footstep) and the Rossier School of Pedagogy at the University of Southern California. Taken together they might lead one to predict smooth sailing for the ii initiatives on the Nov ballot that aim to increase funding for California's schools, but in fact the seas are rough and storm clouds are gathering. Why?

The Footstep/Rossier poll helps to explain the political headwinds facing the 2 initiatives. Our poll was conducted online, which makes it possible to provide respondents with a great deal of data in a variety of formats. We took full reward of this in our polling on Suggestion 30, asking voters near their support for Governor Brown's initiative in three different means.

First, every bit a telephone poll might do, we presented them with the ballot language provided by the Attorney General's function, including the Election Label, Official Title, and Summary of the Proposition. Afterward reading the ballot language, 55 pct of voters expressed support for Proposition 30, while 36 percentage expressed opposition.

Side by side, we presented them with public advertisements supporting and opposing Proposition 30. Exposure to political ads did not shift voters' opinions much; support for Proposition 30 declined from 54 to 52 percentage, just opposition also declined, from 36 to 34 percent.

Finally, we presented voters with two statements of equal length summarizing the value propositions that bulldoze arguments for and against Proposition 30. The start read as follows:

Supporters of Proffer 30 say that after years of arrears spending, Governor Brown has cut billions in spending. We have made progress but we still have serious budget problems. We should have a stand up against further budget cuts to schools and public safety, brand the wealthy pay their fair share, and assistance residue the upkeep.

The second statement read:

Opponents of Suggestion thirty say that Sacramento politicians need to cut wasteful spending before raising our taxes. The State Legislature just voted to spend billions of dollars on a loftier-speed train to nowhere, raised salaries for their senior staff, and merely plant millions of dollars in unspent funds.

We asked voters which of these two statements best reflected their views. Thirty-7 percent chose the argument put forrard past supporters of Proposition 30, while 47 per centum chose the opponents' argument.

The fundamental danger for those seeking additional funding for schools lies here, in California voters' deep and persistent skepticism about whether the state can be trusted to utilize resources well. As a recent PPIC report confirms, voters distrust politicians and believe that a big share of public spending is wasted, in education as in other sectors. Persuading them that more educational spending will atomic number 82 to better outcomes for students is a huge political challenge.

The claiming is exacerbated this November by the increasingly rancorous debate betwixt supporters of Proposition 30 and supporters of Proposition 38 about which initiative is better for California schools. The supporters of Proposition 38 have designed their proposal and framed their advertising to reinforce rather than face the public's doubts about whether the state can be trusted to spend coin wisely. Their hope to proceed new revenues out of the hands of "Sacramento politicians" clearly resonates with California voters, only not in a positive fashion. Instead, by playing to voters' distaste for politics and public spending their campaign is very likely to sink both initiatives, with consequences for the state's instruction organization that are fearsome to contemplate.

Californians are manifestly concerned about the condition of the state'south schools. They have a reasonably clear idea almost what's needed to movement the state'southward education arrangement in a better direction, and they recognize that making progress is likely to require more money for schools. For now, though, they lack conviction that educational improvement is an achievable goal. It seems increasingly likely that they will show themselves right on Nov six.

David N. Plank is executive director of Policy Analysis for California Didactics (Stride). Before joining Footstep in January 2007, he wevery bit a professor at Michigan State Academy, where he founded and directed the Educational activity Policy Center. He was previously on the faculties at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Texas at Dallas, where he taught courses and conducted inquiry in the areas of educational finance and policy. He has published widely in a number of different fields; his current interests include the office of the state in education and the relationship between academic enquiry and public policy.

To become more reports like this one, click here to sign upwards for EdSource's no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.