Interstate Snapshots (last updated on 9-18-12)

Polling the StatesK-12 Education and School Choice (… a working slide deck) Paul DiPerna paul@edchoice.org September 18, 2012 (last update)

A General Profileof Our State Surveys

Survey Organization: Braun Research, Inc. (BRI)Sponsor: The Friedman Foundation for Educational ChoiceInterview Dates: 2010 to 2012 (field dates vary by state)Interview Method: Live Telephone (landline-to-cell phone ratio varies by state)Avg Interview Length: 12 minutesLanguage(s): English, Spanish (in select states)Sample Frame: Registered VotersSampling Method: Probability Sampling; Random Digit Dial (RDD) Dual FrameSample Size: Varies by StateMargin of Error: Varies by StateWeighting? Yes (demographic weights vary by state)Paul DiPerna is responsible for overall polling design; question wording and ordering; analysis,charts, and writing in polling papers; and any unintentional errors or misrepresentations.

SurveySnapshots

What do registered voters say about K-12 Education in their states?

K-12, Right Direction vs. Wrong TrackState Rankings By Net Score State Right Direction Wrong Track State Net N= Mo/Yr Rank % % 1t Kansas 49 38 + 11 602 Jul/10 1t Montana 49 38 + 11 604 Apr/12 3 Alaska 46 39 +7 1,006 Sep/11 4 Arkansas 46 41 +5 603 Jul/10 5 New Jersey 39 39 even 602 Jul/10 6 Mississippi 41 52 - 11 603 Jul/10 7 Tennessee 36 50 - 14 606 Feb/12 8 Louisiana 34 50 - 16 802 Feb/12 9 New York 36 53 - 17 603 Jul/10 10 Alabama 35 53 - 18 601 Jul/10 11 New Mexico 34 52 - 18 808 Sep/11 12t Indiana 31 52 - 21 1,017 Nov/10 12t Washington 31 52 - 21 602 Feb/12 14 Idaho 31 57 - 26 1,202 Nov/11 15 North Carolina 29 55 - 26 601 Jun/12 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

NOTE: The previous chart is suggestive for makingrelative comparisons. Several factors may contributeto response variation on the same questions: statesurveys have been administered in different timeperiods; sample sizes vary, producing differentmargins of error; survey questionnaires slightly varyon question quantity and question ordering. We use aRegistered Voters (RV) sample frame for each statesurvey. If two or more states have the same Net value,then Right Direction value is the tie-breaker.

Rating the State’s Public School SystemState Rankings By Net Score State Good / Excellent Fair / Poor State Net Intensity N= Mo/Yr Rank % % 1 Montana 60 28 + 32 +9 604 Apr/12 2 Kansas 63 35 + 28 +4 602 Jul/10 3 Washington 52 44 +8 -3 602 Feb/12 4 New Jersey 52 45 +7 -2 602 Jul/10 5 Alaska 48 47 +1 -3 490 Sep/11 6 Arkansas 48 48 even -6 603 Jul/10 7 Tennessee 47 49 -2 -6 606 Feb/12 8 Idaho 46 51 -5 -8 1,202 Nov/11 9 North Carolina 45 52 -7 -6 601 Jun/12 10 Indiana 42 55 - 13 - 11 1,017 Nov/10 11 New York 43 56 - 13 - 14 603 Jul/10 12 Mississippi 42 57 - 15 - 12 603 Jul/10 13 Alabama 40 58 - 18 - 16 601 Jul/10 14 Louisiana 34 63 - 29 - 20 802 Feb/12 15 New Mexico 32 65 - 33 - 19 808 Sep/11 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

NOTE: The previous chart is suggestive for makingrelative comparisons. Several factors may contribute toresponse variation on the same questions: state surveyshave been administered in different time periods; samplesizes vary, producing different margins of error; surveyquestionnaires slightly vary on question quantity andquestion ordering. We use a Registered Voters (RV)sample frame for each state survey. Intensity ismeasured by subtracting the percentage of “poor"responses from the percentage of “excellent"responses. The difference indicates how passionate themood is for K-12 education in the state. If two or morestates have the same Net value, then the Intensity valueis tie-breaker #1. If still a "tie," then Good/Excellentvalue is tie-breaker #2.

What do voters know abouthow much is spent on K-12 Education in their states?

Knowledge of K-12 Per Student SpendingBy State Survey Per Student % Saying Correct % Saying State N= Mo/Yr Spending Spending Range Less than $4,000 Alabama $9,042 7 51 601 Jul/10 Alaska $15,353 7 24 1,006 Sep/11 Arkansas $8,854 9 41 603 Jul/10 Idaho $7,118 26 32 1,202 Nov/11 Indiana $9,254 10 39 1,017 Nov/10 Kansas $10,201 10 40 602 Jul/10 Louisiana $10,625 11 29 802 Feb/12 Mississippi $8,064 9 47 603 Jul/10 Montana $10,189 11 20 604 Apr/12 New Jersey $17,076 11 30 602 Jul/10 New Mexico $9,648 13 31 808 Sep/11 New York $17,746 7 38 603 Jul/10 North Carolina $8,518 8 26 601 Jun/12 Tennessee $7,992 25 31 606 Feb/12 Washington $9,688 19 21 602 Feb/12 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

NOTE: The 2009 per student spending data include dollarsspent on instruction, instruction-related, support services,and other elementary/secondary current expenditures, butexclude expenditures on long-term debt service, facilitiesand construction, and other programs. See 8. FrankJohnson, Lei Zhou, and Nanae Nakamoto, Revenues andExpenditures for Public Elementary and SecondaryEducation: School Year 2008–09 (Fiscal Year 2009) (NCES2011-329). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics (June 2011).This chart is suggestive for making relative comparisons.Several factors may contribute to response variation on thesame questions: state surveys have been administered indifferent time periods; sample sizes vary, producingdifferent margins of error; survey questionnaires slightlyvary on question quantity and question ordering. We use aRegistered Voters (RV) sample frame for each state survey.

What type of school is first preference?

School Type PreferencesBy State Survey Regular State Private School Charter School Homeschool N= Mo/Yr Public School Alabama 38 40 8 11 601 Jul/10 Alaska 39 30 15 11 1,006 Sep/11 Arkansas 37 33 12 14 603 Jul/10 Idaho 38 27 22 8 1,202 Nov/11 Indiana 38 41 10 7 1,017 Nov/10 Kansas 40 35 13 9 602 Jul/10 Louisiana 31 49 10 8 802 Feb/12 Mississippi 43 38 8 10 603 Jul/10 Montana 50 28 9 10 604 Apr/12 New Jersey 40 39 12 7 602 Jul/10 New Mexico 37 36 15 9 808 Sep/11 New York 29 49 14 7 603 Jul/10 North Carolina 34 39 15 11 601 Jun/12 Tennessee 40 40 9 8 606 Feb/12 Washington 40 35 14 7 602 Feb/12 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

NOTE: The previous chart is suggestive for makingrelative comparisons. Several factors may contribute toresponse variation on the same questions: state surveyshave been administered in different time periods; samplesizes vary, producing different margins of error; surveyquestionnaires slightly vary on question quantity andquestion ordering. We use a Registered Voters (RV)sample frame for each state survey.

How much do voters know aboutstructural reforms in K-12 Education?

Familiarity with Structural ReformsBy State Survey Charter Schools Virtual Schools School Vouchers State N= Mo/Yr % Familiar % Familiar % Familiar Alabama 31 26 33 601 Jul/10 Alaska 52 38 38 1,006 Sep/11 Arkansas 37 29 41 603 Jul/10 Idaho 57 52 32 1,202 Nov/11 Indiana 29 NA 32 1,017 Nov/10 Kansas 39 37 43 602 Jul/10 Louisiana 37 NA 38 802 Feb/12 Mississippi 31 31 41 603 Jul/10 Montana 30 35 37 604 Apr/12 New Jersey 54 27 50 602 Jul/10 New Mexico 44 28 40 808 Sep/11 New York 53 24 42 603 Jul/10 North Carolina 46 25 36 601 Jun/12 Tennessee 33 31 38 606 Feb/12 Washington 46 43 35 602 Feb/12 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

NOTE: "Familiar" values based on combining "Very"and "Somewhat" familiar responses. We asked about"virtual charter schools" in Indiana, and apply theseresponses to the Virtual Schools column in this table.This may explain the depressed value in Indiana whencompared to the other states. This chart is suggestivefor making relative comparisons. Several factors maycontribute to response variation on the samequestions: state surveys have been administered indifferent time periods; sample sizes vary, producingdifferent margins of error; survey questionnairesslightly vary on question quantity and questionordering. We use a Registered Voters (RV) sampleframe for each state survey.

What do voters sayabout charter schools?

Charter Schools, Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score State Favor Oppose State Net Intensity N= Mo/Yr Rank % % 1 Alaska 72 11 + 61 + 30 490 Sep/11 2 New Mexico 72 18 + 54 + 23 808 Sep/11 3 Idaho 69 17 + 52 + 25 1,202 Nov/11 4 New Jersey 70 19 + 51 + 19 602 Jul/10 5 North Carolina 65 15 + 50 + 24 601 Jun/12 6 Indiana 66 17 + 49 + 20 1,017 Nov/10 7 New York 68 20 + 48 + 25 603 Jul/10 8 Tennessee 61 18 + 43 + 14 606 Feb/12 9 Kansas 62 20 + 42 + 19 602 Jul/10 10 Mississippi 62 20 + 42 + 16 603 Jul/10 11 Louisiana 61 22 + 39 + 19 802 Feb/12 12 Arkansas 60 23 + 37 + 16 603 Jul/10 13 Washington 60 23 + 37 + 14 602 Feb/12 14 Alabama 58 21 + 37 + 14 601 Jul/10 15 Montana 54 21 + 33 +11 604 Apr/12 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

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

What do voters sayabout virtual schools?

Virtual Schools, Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score State Favor Oppose State Net Intensity N= Mo/Yr Rank % % 1 Alaska 45 38 +7 +1 1,006 Sep/11 2 Washington 42 45 -3 -7 301 Feb/12 3 Montana 41 47 -6 - 13 302 Apr/12 4 North Carolina 37 46 -9 - 12 601 Jun/12 5 New Mexico 37 50 - 13 - 15 808 Sep/11 6 Kansas 38 51 - 13 - 19 602 Jul/10 7 Indiana 37 51 - 14 - 19 1,017 Nov/10 8 Idaho 38 53 - 15 - 16 633 Nov/11 9 Mississippi 35 51 - 16 - 18 603 Jul/10 10 Arkansas 31 51 - 20 - 21 603 Jul/10 11 Tennessee 33 55 - 22 - 18 303 Feb/12 12 Alabama 31 54 - 23 - 25 601 Jul/10 13 New York 33 57 - 24 - 30 603 Jul/10 14 New Jersey 27 58 - 31 - 23 602 Jul/10 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

NOTE: "Favor" and "Oppose" values based on combining"Strongly" and "Somewhat" responses. We asked about "virtualcharter schools" in Indiana, and use these responses for thistable. This chart is suggestive for making relative comparisons.Several factors may contribute to response variation on thesame questions: state surveys have been administered indifferent time periods; sample sizes vary, producing differentmargins of error; survey questionnaires slightly vary on questionquantity and question ordering. We use a Registered Voters (RV)sample frame for each state survey. Intensity is measured bysubtracting the percentage of "strongly oppose" responses fromthe percentage of "strongly favor" responses. The differenceindicates how passionate the support or opposition is for a givenpolicy or proposal. If two or more states have the same Netvalue, then the Intensity value is tie-breaker #1. If still a tie, thenFavor value is tie-breaker #2.

What do voters sayabout tax-credit scholarships?

Tax-Credit Scholarships, Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score State Favor Oppose State Net Intensity N= Mo/Yr Rank % % 1 New York 70 22 + 48 + 23 603 Jul/10 2 New Jersey 69 23 + 46 + 22 602 Jul/10 3 Alaska 64 18 + 46 + 24 490 Sep/11 4 Arkansas 65 24 + 41 + 22 603 Jul/10 5 Mississippi 65 24 + 41 + 20 603 Jul/10 6 Indiana 63 22 + 41 + 15 1,017 Nov/10 7 Idaho 60 21 + 39 + 13 1,202 Nov/11 8 North Carolina 63 25 + 38 + 12 302 Jun/12 9 New Mexico 62 26 + 36 +8 388 Sep/11 10 Alabama 60 25 + 35 + 15 601 Jul/10 11 Tennessee 61 26 + 35 + 14 303 Feb/12 12 Washington 59 25 + 34 + 10 301 Feb/12 13 Montana 59 28 + 31 + 13 302 Apr/12 14 Kansas 56 29 + 27 + 11 602 Jul/10 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

What do voters say abouteducation savings accounts?

Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score State Favor Oppose State Net Intensity N= Mo/Yr Rank % % 1 Alaska 61 27 + 34 + 18 1,006 Sep/11 2 North Carolina 56 28 + 28 + 18 302 Jun/12 3 Washington 57 31 + 26 +7 602 Feb/12 4 Tennessee 56 31 + 25 + 12 606 Feb/12 5 Montana 55 31 + 24 +7 604 Apr/12 6 New Mexico 57 35 + 22 + 10 808 Sep/11 7 Idaho 53 32 + 21 +4 1,202 Nov/11 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

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

What do voters sayabout school vouchers?

School Vouchers, Favor vs. OpposeState Rankings By Net Score State Favor Oppose State Net Intensity N= Mo/Yr Rank % % 1 Mississippi 74 20 + 54 + 33 603 Jul/10 2 New Jersey 69 26 + 43 + 20 602 Jul/10 3 Indiana 66 25 + 41 + 24 1,017 Nov/10 4 New York 66 26 + 40 + 26 603 Jul/10 5 Alaska 64 29 + 35 + 16 1,006 Sep/11 6 Louisiana 63 29 + 34 + 21 802 Feb/12 7 Alabama 62 28 + 34 + 16 601 Jul/10 8 New Mexico 62 31 + 31 + 15 808 Sep/11 9 Arkansas 60 30 + 30 + 21 603 Jul/10 10 Tennessee 59 31 + 28 + 11 606 Feb/12 11 North Carolina 57 32 + 25 + 14 601 Jun/12 12 Kansas 57 36 + 21 + 14 602 Jul/10 13 Idaho 56 35 + 21 +9 1,202 Nov/11 14 Washington 55 35 + 20 +4 602 Feb/12 15 Montana 52 39 + 13 +4 604 Apr/12 SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

Thank You Questions, Comments, or Suggestions? Contact: Paul DiPerna, paul@edchoice.org

Interstate Snapshots (last updated on 9-18-12)

by Paul DiPerna

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Interstate Snapshots (last updated on 9-18-12) Presentation Transcript