ERIC ED528846: Idaho K-12 & School Choice Survey: What Do Voters Say about K-12 Education. Polling Paper No. 5

2 MB·English

by  ERIC

IDAHO
K-12 & SCHOOL CHOICE SURVEY
What Do Voters Say About K-12 Education?

Polling Paper No. 5
January 5, 2012

With questions on state performance, education spending,
charter schools, virtual schools, tax-credit scholarships,
education savings accounts, and school vouchers

Paul DiPerna
Research Director
[email protected]

www.edchoice.org

1 | www.edchoice.org
Survey Project & Profile

___________________________________________

Title: Idaho K-12 & School Choice Survey

Survey Organization: Braun Research Incorporated (BRI)

Sponsor: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

Interview Dates: October 22 to November 6, 2011

Interview Method: Live Telephone | 59% landline and 41% cell phone (prior to weighting)

Interview Length: 12 minutes

Language(s): English

Sample Frame: Registered Voters

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

Split Sample Sizes: ―Split A‖=633; ―Split B‖=569

Sample Sizes: IDAHO (statewide) = 1,202;
Boise-Nampa = 501; Coeur d’Alene = 504; Idaho Falls = 501

Margin of Error: ± 2.8 percentage points for the statewide sample;
± 4.4 percentage points (approx.) for each regional sample
± 3.9 percentage points for ―Split A‖ sample
± 4.1 percentage points for ―Split B‖ sample

Response Rates: (LL) IDAHO=19.6%; Region Avg=19.8%
(Cell) IDAHO=23.8%; Region Avg=23.2%

Weighting? Yes (Gender, Race, Age, Education Level)

Oversampling? Yes (Boise-Nampa, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho Falls)

Project Contact:
Paul DiPerna | Research Director | [email protected]

The author is responsible for overall polling design; question wording and ordering; this
paper’s analysis, charts, and writing; and any unintentional errors or misrepresentations.

2 | www.edchoice.org
Survey Demographics
STATE % Boise-Nampa % Coeur d'Alene % Idaho Falls %
K-12 Parent 36 42 28 41
Democrat 17 19 19 10
Independent 30 30 31 28
Republican 39 38 38 47
Liberal 12 16 11 7
Moderate 33 36 34 34
Conservative 48 43 49 53
Urban 16 27 10 12
Suburban 22 39 18 15
Small Town 33 18 45 40
Rural 28 16 26 31
18 - 29 18 18 20 21
30 - 39 18 20 14 18
40 - 49 16 20 17 18
50 - 64 27 26 28 25
65 & Over 21 17 21 18
Hispanic 7 8 3 9
Not Hispanic 92 92 97 91
Asian 1 1 1 1
Black 0 1 0 0
Other 7 7 3 7
White 90 91 95 92
Catholic 12 13 13 11
Jewish 1 0 0 0
Mormon 15 9 3 35
Muslim 0 0 0 0
Protestant 47 50 56 35
None 18 20 20 14
Under $25,000 20 15 17 25
$25,000 - $49,999 24 21 32 26
$50,000 - $74,999 21 20 19 20
$75,000 - $124,999 17 22 14 14
$125,000 - $200,000 5 8 5 4
Over $200,000 2 2 1 1
< HS Graduate 10 10 9 11
HS Graduate 26 24 30 28
Tech, Trade, Vocational 4 5 3 4
Some College 33 32 36 34
≥ College 27 30 21 22
Male 49 48 50 51
Female 51 52 50 49
3 | www.edchoice.org
January 5, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5 Idaho’s K-12 Profile
7 Overview
8 Key Findings
16 Survey Snapshots
38 Methods Summary
38 Sample Design
39 Contact Procedures
40 Call Dispositions and Response Rates
42 Weighting Procedures and Analysis
43 About Us, Acknowledgements
47 Survey Questionnaire and Topline

This report was made possible by the generous financial support of the J.A. and
Kathryn Albertson Foundation.

4 | www.edchoice.org
Idaho’s K-12 Profile

Average State Rank on NAEP 1 21

High School Graduation Rate 2 81%

# Regular Public School Students 3 262,422
# Charter School Students 4 13,877
# Private School Students 5 10,167

% Public School Students 6 91.6%
% Charter School Students 6 4.8%
% Private School Students 6 3.5%

# School Districts 3 116
# Regular Public Schools 3 755
# Charter Schools 3 36
# Private Schools 5 115

Virtual Schools Climate 7 Strong

% Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 3 43%
% Individualized Education Program (IEP) 3 10%
% English Language Learners (ELL) 3 6%

$ Revenue Per Student 8 $8,157
$ Per Student Spending 8 $7,118

5 | www.edchoice.org
Idaho Profile Notes

1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Average of four rankings
(rounded upward to nearest single digit) based on 2011 state scale scores for 4th grade reading
(#23); 4th grade math (#27); 8th grade reading (#15); 8th grade math (#19).
URL: nationsreportcard.gov/data_tools.asp
2. Reported high school graduation rates, determined by the Average Freshman Graduation Rate
(AFGR) on the National Center for Education Statistics section on the U.S. Department of Education
website. Data for 2008-2009 school year.
URL: nces.ed.gov/ccd
3. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). Data for the 2009-2010 school year.
URL: nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states
4. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). Data for the 2009-2010 school year.
URL: nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch
5. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe
Survey (PSS). Data for 2009–2010 school year.
URL: nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/index.asp
6. Percentages are meant for general impressions only. State-level data on home-school students are
generally unreliable, and this subpopulation of students could not be included in this table. Due to
rounding, percentage totals may be slightly greater or less than 100%.
7. Author rating (Weak, Moderate, or Strong), based on John Watson, Amy Murin, Lauren Vashaw,
Butch Gemin, and Chris Rapp, Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of State-
Level Policy and Practice, (Evergreen Education Group, 2011), Table 2.
URL: http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPace2011.pdf
8. Frank Johnson, Lei Zhou, and Nanae Nakamoto, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and
Secondary Education: School Year 2008–09 (Fiscal Year 2009) (NCES 2011-329). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics (June 2011).
URL: nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011329.pdf
“Current Expenditures” data include dollars spent on instruction, instruction-related, support
services, and other elementary/secondary current expenditures, but exclude expenditures on long-
term debt service, facilities and construction, and other programs.
6 | www.edchoice.org
Overview

The ―Idaho K-12 & School Choice Survey" project, commissioned by The Friedman
Foundation for Educational Choice and conducted by Braun Research Incorporated (BRI),
measures Idaho registered voters’ familiarity and views on a range of K-12 education issues
and school choice reforms. We report response levels and differences (we use the term
―net score‖ or ―net‖) of voter opinion, and the intensity of responses.
Where do the voters stand on important issues and policy proposals in K-12 education?
We attempt to provide some observations and insights in the following pages of this paper.
A randomly selected and statistically representative sample of Idaho voters recently
responded to 17 substantive questions and 11 demographic questions (see pages 47 – 77).
The next section summarizes our key findings.
A total of 2,097 telephone interviews were conducted in English from October 22 to
November 6, 2011, by means of both landline and cell phone. The statewide sample
included 1,202 interviews, and regional oversamples included at least 500 interviews.
Statistical results were weighted to correct known demographic discrepancies. The margin
of sampling error for the statewide sample is ± 2.8 percentage points. Margin of error for
each regional sample (Boise-Nampa, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho Falls) is ± 4.4 percentage points.
In this project we included two split-sample experiments. A split sample design is a
systematic way of comparing the effects of two or more alternative wordings for a given
question. The purpose is to see if particular wording, or providing a new piece of
information, can significantly influence opinion on a given topic.
Our polling paper has four sections. The first section summarizes key findings. We call
the second section ―Survey Snapshots,‖ which offers charts illustrating the core findings
of the survey. The third section describes the survey’s methodology, summarizes
response statistics, and presents additional technical information on call dispositions for
landline and cell phone interviews. The fourth section presents our questionnaire and
results (―topline numbers‖), essentially allowing the reader to follow the actual interview
7 | www.edchoice.org
as it was conducted, with respect to question wording and ordering. We have set out to
give a straight-forward analysis, going light on editorial commentary, and letting the
numbers and charts communicate the major findings.

Key Findings
The vast majority of Idaho’s voters (78%) are paying attention to
issues in K-12 education. Only 6% of voters say they pay no attention.
See Question 1
In the state, those Idahoans who say they pay ―a lot‖ of attention to K-12
education issues outnumber those who say they pay no attention by more than a
6-to-1 ratio. Voters in various state regions share similar tendencies.
Idahoans are a lot less likely to think that K-12 education is heading in the
“right direction” (31%) compared to being on the “wrong track” (57%).
See Question 2
The views of demographic groups vary. Considering the right direction-wrong
track net scores, there is a range of opinion from very negative to roughly neutral.
Those voters who are least pessimistic about the direction of K-12 education in
Idaho are Republicans (-10 net), those living in households making more than
$125,000 (-1 net), or Hispanic (-7 net). The most negative voters are those living
in urban areas (-38 net), consider themselves Democrats (-46 net) or Independents
(-36 net), or live in a household earning between $25,000 and $49,999 (-36 net).
Idaho voters lean negative in the way they rate the state’s public school
system (46% say “good” or “excellent”; 51% say “fair” or “poor). By
contrast, voters in Coeur d’Alene actually register nearly opposite
ratings (52% say “good” or “excellent”; 43% say “fair” or “poor).
8 | www.edchoice.org
See Question 3
We see interesting differences among different political party affiliations and age
groups. Democrats (-14 net) and Independents (-19 net) are quite negative, while
Republicans (+9 net) represent one of the few demographics that are positive
about the state’s public schools. The youngest voters, age 18 to 29, give the most
negative ratings (-22 net), whereas those older voters, age 50 & Over, give mildly
positive ratings (+3 net). Hispanics similarly give slightly positive ratings (+ net).
However, the intensity of these ratings clearly tilt negative. The groups most
likely to be strongly negative about the public school system are rural voters,
Independents and Democrats, young and middle-age voters, those households
making less than$50,000, and Hispanics.
More than 4 out of 10 voters say “state government” is most
responsible for their views on the state’s K-12 public school system. A
distant second is the response “school boards” (18%). Roughly 1 out
of 10 voters say “parents” (13%) or “teachers” (10%) are most
responsible for their previous ratings.
See Question 4
Interestingly, voters in Coeur d’Alene differ from other parts of the state. They
place less responsibility on state government (36%), and more on parents (17%)
and teachers (13%).
There are some differences among political parties, too. Republicans and
Independents focus more on parents (14% and 17%, respectively).
Comparatively, Democrats emphasize parents less (8%) and much more on state
government (56%).

9 | www.edchoice.org
Generally speaking, Idaho voters do not know how much is spent in
the public schools. There is a yawning information gap.
See Question 5
About one-fourth of respondents (26%) could estimate the correct per-student
spending range in Idaho. The state spends a little more than $7,000 for each
student in the public schools, but nearly a third of those interviewed thought that
the state spent less than $4,000 per student. This is a pattern we have seen in
our other state surveys.
Although Idaho does a little better than other states (average is typically 10%
correct), voters are still way off the mark. Policymakers should be cautious. A
policy focus on school funding may be misguided. Better-informed voters could
have very different reactions to proposals for increased or decreased education
funding. The following split-sample experiment should give pause to populist
urges to boost school funding.
When given the latest per-student spending information, voters are less
likely to say public school funding is at a level that is “too low” compared
to answering without having such information.
See Questions 6A and 6B
We asked two slightly different questions about the level of public school funding
in Idaho. On version 6A, 57% of voters said that public school funding is ―too
low‖. However on version 6B, which included a sentence offering the most recent
data on per-student funding in Idaho ($7,118 in 2009), the proportion of voters
saying ―too low‖ shrank by 10 percentage points, effectively a 17% reduction.
It appears Idahoans are likely to change their views on public school funding – at
least when initially saying it is deficient – if given accurate per-student spending
information. The implication that opinion can turn on a single piece of data is
10 | www.edchoice.org