First, respondents were asked whether they consider themselves to be a Democrats, Republicans, independents, other, or not sure. Those who responded that they are independents or "other" were then asked if they lean toward either the Democrats or Republicans. If they indicated that they lean toward one party or the other, they are considered Democrats or Republicans for the purposes of this figure.
Only "pure" independents or members of a third party who indicate that they have no preference for Democrats vis-a-vis Republicans are considered independents. Respondents who answered that they are "not sure" for either of the two aforementioned questions are not incorporated into this figure.
When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district? Check out the latest poll page to explore results related to the 87th legislative session, the coronavirus pandemic, assessments of state leaders, and more. Check in with our partners at The Texas Tribune for the latest results, then return back here for more.
Check out our polling search with the tag "coronavirus," it contains 78 items and over graphics of results. Loading chart Table Share More Respondents were asked, "If the primary elections for President were held today, would you vote in the Republican primary, the Democratic primary, or wouldn't you vote in either primary? Related Results.
Republican Party Favorability August Democratic Party Favorability August How much have you heard about: A majority of Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives leaving the state of Texas to delay consideration of new legislation on voting and elections August Support or Oppose: A majority of Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives leaving the state of Texas to delay consideration of new legislation on voting and elections August Is the Democratic Party Welcoming October Is the Republican Party Welcoming October Republican Party Favorability Trend.
Democratic Party Favorability Trend. Is the Republican Party Welcoming? Is the Democratic Party Welcoming? Democratic Party Favorability February Republican Party Favorability February Tea Party Support October Tea Party Influence October Partisan Ideological Identification.
Robert Mueller Approval June Republican Party Favorability June Democratic Party Favorability June Presidential Election June Opinion regarding investigations into possible Russian efforts to influence election June Tea Party Support June Tea Party Influence June Knowledge about investigation into Russian influence on U. Was the Outcome of the Election Influenced by Russia? February Opinion regarding investigations into possible Russian efforts to influence election February Tea Party Identification February Tea Party Influence February The school funding debate is as important today as it was in when Rodriguez demanded a better education for his children.
Given these findings, the authors recommend principles to guide a new framework for school finance reform: a high-quality finance system. While the past few decades of state litigation focusing on equity or adequacy have increased awareness of the importance of fiscal equity, policymakers must refine the debate in order to achieve a high-quality education for all students.
The authors propose that the following key principles should guide school finance reform at the federal and state levels:. The goals of public education must evolve with the changing world, and today, schools must prepare students for college, career, and civic engagement. Ensuring educational opportunities is critical to the health of U. A just K public schooling system should meaningfully prepare all students, including the most disadvantaged, for their roles in public service or democratic governance.
Without a robust education system, the armed forces would lack qualified recruits. The strength of the economy is also closely tied to education. Recent studies show that gross domestic product GDP has a strong relationship with educational outcomes. In the s, the majority of jobs were available to individuals with a high school diploma or less. During the recent economic recovery, 95 percent of the jobs created went to workers with postsecondary education or training.
Furthermore, education is one of the best predictors of future income. After 50 years of state school finance litigation and school finance reform, some states have minimized inequities in per-pupil education across districts within state lines. However, significant inequities remain. Local, state, and federal governments all contribute to overall education funding and perpetuate some of these inequities. As a result, local, state, and federal actors must all work to revamp school funding systems with a focus on quality.
States, specifically, will have a central role. The right to an education rests with the state, as articulated in state constitutions, and local and state governments provide the vast majority of school funding. Meanwhile, the federal government must continue to focus its funding and support on high-poverty schools and address inequities that exist across state lines. Although state constitutions indicate that the right to education rests with the state, schools have historically been primarily funded at the local level.
Specifically, local property taxes had been the main source of funding for public education. Because districts have vastly different property tax bases, the poorest districts raise less money than more affluent districts, creating disparities in per-pupil expenditures. New analyses disaggregate the allocations of local, state, and federal governments.
Data compiled by the Urban Institute show that local education funding across the country is still highly regressive—although it has become slightly more progressive between and Students in poverty continue to receive less funding than their more affluent peers.
High-poverty school districts in only four states—Minnesota, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont—receive more local funds per pupil than more affluent districts. State funding formulas generally compensate for regressive local funding. In 23 states, high-poverty and affluent districts receive about the same amount per pupil in state and local dollars.
In four states, the highest-poverty districts receive significantly less per pupil in state and local funding than more affluent districts. And in Illinois, high-poverty districts received 22 percent less per pupil in state and local funds than more affluent districts. Times have changed dramatically since the Rodriguez decision, and there is deepening consensus that federal government has an important role in supporting the education of students with the greatest needs.
The federal investment in education increases the share of funding allocated to high-poverty districts. These differences are so stark that students in certain states only receive a fraction of funds that students in other states receive. For example, according to a recent study by the Education Law Center, students in Mississippi only receive about 40 percent of the per-pupil funds of New Jersey students, while students in Alabama receive slightly less than 50 percent of the per-pupil funds as students in Connecticut.
While some states have made progress in addressing disparities within states, unequal access still exists within states. At the same time, inequities are greatest across states lines, as per-pupil spending across states varies dramatically.
Although school finance advocates and policymakers often compare spending between the poorest and wealthiest districts within a state, the differences in district-level spending across states are far starker. These extreme spending inequities have an impact, and a large body of research suggests that money does matter in education. When school districts spend money wisely, they have better outcomes, including higher test scores, increased graduation rates, and other improved indicators of student achievement.
This has clear implications for the public school system, as students who do not get their fair share of dollars do not get an equal chance to compete with their more advantaged peers.
For instance, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research NBER study, state fiscal reforms have had a positive impact on student outcomes—particularly among low-income students. In fact, the study found that spending increases improved high school graduation rates among low-income students and increased their adulthood earnings by 10 percent.
Note that, when it comes to policy approaches, foundation plans are most similar to an adequacy framework—a point explored in greater detail below.
Another recent NBER study confirmed this idea that fiscal reforms in adequacy cases have led to more progressive funding systems and increased student outcomes. These reforms also contributed to student gains in reading and mathematics, with the largest increases among low-income students. Relatedly, beginning in , a decline in public spending on education has negatively affected student outcomes. During the Great Recession, state and district funding for public education declined dramatically.
Kirabo Jackson, a professor of human development and social policy at Northwestern University, asserts that the decline in National Assessment of Educational Progress NAEP scores in and is tied to the decline in education spending following the Great Recession. Inequities go beyond money. Core services, which make a huge difference in instructional quality and student performance, are systematically unavailable to students in low-income schools relative to students in higher-income schools.
Put simply, school funding debates must go beyond the raw numbers and evaluate whether students have equitable access to the resources needed for success, including early childhood education, quality teachers, and exposure to challenging curriculum.
Early childhood education is a critical tool to level the playing field for students in poverty who generally start school academically behind their more affluent peers.
For example, some studies suggest that, compared with their higher-income peers, low-income students start school with a smaller vocabulary. Yet students in poverty are less likely to attend preschool programs. The effectiveness and experience of teachers also have a pronounced impact on instructional quality.
No other in-school factor has as significant an impact on student achievement as the teacher at the front of the room. In Washington, D. Higher-poverty schools also have fewer experienced teachers and greater teacher turnover. Rigorous curriculum can significantly increase academic outcomes and prepare students for college and the workforce.
Fifty-three percent of low-income students graduate high school without college or career preparatory coursework, compared with 44 percent of their affluent peers. In some states, such as New York, the issue is particularly pressing.
Studies by the federal government demonstrate that the unequal access to rigorous courses is a national problem. Data from the school year show that high schools with higher percentages of black and Latino students offer math and science courses at a lower rate relative to all high schools.
The difference is greatest in terms of access to advanced mathematics, calculus, and physics. A study conducted in New York City examined the performance of students who previously struggled academically but were incorrectly placed on an instructional track intended for students with greater mathematical ability, finding that they performed well when placed in a rigorous instructional setting that held them to higher expectations.
However, when placed on a high-achieving track, that same student had a 91 percent chance of completing two such classes. Furthermore, an analysis of the cost of different interventions found that transitioning to higher-quality curriculum provides a higher return on investment than many other reforms—for example, almost 40 times the return of class-size reduction.
Litigation has heightened awareness of the importance of fiscal equity in education and spurred necessary change in states across the country. The U. Rodriguez by arguing that education was not a guaranteed federal right.
Some litigants continue to attempt to overturn Rodriguez in order to establish a federal right to education, but until then, many advocates turn to the states. Numerous state courts have reinforced meaningful provisions in state constitutions and required legislative action to improve educational opportunities for all students. Advocates in various states have taken different approaches to advance equity—some with success and some with unintended outcomes.
The following section describes the decision in Rodriguez and examines examples of the different approaches that advocates have used to advance school finance reform within states. The authors highlight some of the unintended outcomes, as well as the most positive aspects of the remedies, in order to inform a new framework for a potential federal right moving forward.
In Rodriguez, the plaintiffs argued that education was a fundamental interest under the U. Constitution because of its vital importance to both the right to vote and freedom of expression.
In other words, the plaintiffs contended that education was a constitutional right because a certain level of education is necessary for the proper exercise of these rights. Yet the Supreme Court decided that public education was not guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Instead, it found that education was an important but voluntary service provided by the government, arguing that while the Constitution does guarantee its citizens the right to vote, it does not guarantee that individuals should be able to exercise this right to the best of their abilities or at their highest potential.
The Supreme Court also found that the Texas approach was constitutional because it provided the bare minimum necessary. Brennan Jr.
Marshall argued that the burden of proof fell on the state to show that funding disparities did not grossly affect the quality of education that students received. The debate around the federal right to education is ongoing. In recent years, litigants in multiple states have filed suits to overturn Rodriguez.
Similarly, in , a group of parents and students filed a federal lawsuit in Connecticut arguing that state laws systematically prevent some students from receiving minimally acceptable education. Two of the earliest and best-known instances of state equity cases occurred during the mids.
Both cases resulted in victories: one in California Serrano v. Priest and the other in New Jersey Robinson v. Following these successes, equity cases were brought in virtually every state.
As a result, resource differences among districts in some states have declined. However, in other states, equity cases have had a negative impact on total spending due to the narrow focus on ensuring parity among districts within a state.
In California, the Serrano cases provide the most notorious example. The frame of equalized funding pitted high- and low-wealth districts against each other. Therefore, rather than lifting up the system as a whole, it drove toward the lowest common denominator.
Following Serrano , California prioritized a property tax-based solution that would close spending gaps between poor and wealthy districts. In , Proposition 13, a resolution that placed a cap on property tax rates and restricted annual increases on property value, limited the opportunity to use tax cases as a means to equalize school funding. The state and districts lowered their overall expenditures, and California no longer led the nation in education spending.
In , California ranked 44th based on NAEP scores, graduation rate, college readiness, and access to preschool. Kirby case, which was filed after the Rodriguez decision, turned the issue of school finance into a zero-sum game. In , the court ruled the state finance system unconstitutional on grounds of equity. Under this reform, by the early s, Texas successfully reduced funding disparities between wealthier and poorer districts from to 1, as was the case during the first Edgewood decision, to 28 to 1.
However, in Neeley v. West Orange , the Texas Supreme Court ruled that this was essentially a statewide property tax, which is prohibited in the state constitution. In , the state legislature passed H. Little is likely to change. In the end, equity cases spurred policy change to minimize funding inequities. Yet in some states, the focus on equal dollars, rather than the quality of services provided to students, led to a leveling out of public investment in education.
Over the past few decades, an increasing number of state fiscal cases have focused on issues of adequacy, or a minimum amount of per-pupil funds. These cases rely on states to articulate clear educational goals for all students, identify programs or resources to meet those expectations, and allocate the funds to support necessary inputs.
However, in several cases, this frame has driven efforts to articulate what level of funding and what types of resources are necessary to ensure equal educational opportunity. Cases in New Jersey and Massachusetts provide examples of the latter. Abbott v. Burke is often cited as a success story under an adequacy framework.
Although the road to advocacy was a long one, which involved a series of compliance suits following the original court decision, the ultimate remedies implemented were substantial.
In , the state legislature made another attempt to equalize funding with the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act, but the court found this effort insufficient. In later rulings, the court began mandating funding for specific programs that could improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps. The court also granted districts the right to seek additional funding for on-site social services and other supplemental programs as needed. The court order for whole-school reform in elementary schools also spurred the New Jersey commissioner of education to implement Success for All, a literacy initiative for low-income, at-risk students, statewide.
The Abbott decisions have been critical in improving both fiscal equity and school quality in the state. New Jersey consistently ranks high in education performance and quality, as well as progress in narrowing the achievement gap. In Massachusetts, McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education propelled education funding reform. One hallmark of the bill was its introduction of a foundation formula, which aimed to bring all Massachusetts school districts to an adequate level of per-pupil funding by or over a seven-year phase-in period.
Commissioner of Education that the state had established a system that sufficiently addressed inequities and met the constitutional standard. Student outcomes remain strong. Massachusetts has some of the highest growth rates of any state. For example, a NBER study showed that of the various approaches to school spending reform, fiscal initiatives that guarantee a baseline amount of per-pupil funds—otherwise known as foundation plans—were the most effective in increasing overall per-pupil spending and reducing funding disparities between poor and affluent districts.
Foundation plans are similar to the adequacy framework; compared with equalization plans, they tend to result in increases in spending across all districts over time. To be sure, adequacy has its limitations as a policy. When defined narrowly, the reforms can serve as a barrier to progress. For instance, the U. The nation needs a third way to understand school funding. Drawing from this analysis, the authors recommend that school finance reform emphasize a high-quality education program for all students.
To reach this aim, students with greater needs must receive additional funding, and that funding needs to be targeted at the reforms that matter. Finally, accountability systems and academic standards are necessary to measure quality and shine a light on inequities.
The issue of quality has long been a part of the school funding debate. Justice Marshall mentioned the delivery of high-caliber education in his dissenting opinion in the Rodriguez case. In short, low-income students need more than equity or adequacy; they need sufficient funding to ensure success—which means more funding, not equal funding—as well as equal access to core services with accountability for outcomes.
The following principles should guide school finance reform based on quality at the federal, state, and local levels, but states must drive reform to school funding systems, as local and state dollars account for the vast majority of overall education funding. Using this as a model, school finance advocates should identify the core components of a high-quality education and ensure equal access to those services as a check on a weighted student funding formula.
Specifically, policymakers should fund critical programs to increase the quality of all teachers. Policymakers and school funding advocates should protect and increase funding for teacher compensation and professional development, targeting low-income schools. Programs designed to reduce the cost of teacher preparation—such as the federal Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education TEACH loan forgiveness program—should be enhanced for those willing to teach in high-poverty schools.
The federal government and state policymakers must play a role in ensuring an equitable distribution of skilled and experienced teachers. Under the recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act ESSA , states are required to describe how they will ensure that low-income students and students of color are not more likely to be taught by teachers who are less effective or experienced. Some states took this requirement seriously and used it as an opportunity for developing clear goals and timelines for reducing these inequities, as well as specific strategies for reaching these goals and reporting requirements that ensure transparency should the state fail to reach their goals.
Access to rigorous standards, curricula, and courses is also a key ingredient to a high-quality education. At a minimum, states should ensure that all students have access to algebra in eighth grade and to Advanced Placement AP or similar rigorous courses in high schools. Indiana provides one such example. Indiana wanted to incentivize and support its low-income students to complete rigorous coursework.
Finally, policymakers and school funding advocates must ensure equitable access to early childhood programs and other programs that offer child care. This would require federal and state governments to increase their investment in early childhood in order to ensure that all families, regardless of income, are able to access high-quality early childhood programs.
States with successful remediation efforts have provided more total funds to their low-income students, and in some areas, low-income students receive more than 20 percent more in total funding than their affluent peers. Weighted student funding can help navigate the balance between higher-quality and better supports. Funding is allocated to schools based on the number and demographics of students they serve. Principals can build their school budget, staff, and program options to best serve their students.
Several states, including California and Rhode Island, have rolled out comprehensive school funding reforms that include weighted student funding. The impact of these programs is yet to be determined, but early results show at least some promise. Weighted student formulas should be tied to accountability frameworks that look at outcomes as well as equal access to core services, including early childhood education, effective teachers, and rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum.
0コメント