A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 2 0

H A R V A R D P R O G R A M

ANNUAL REPORT 2020

HARVARD PROGRAM ON EDUCATION POLICY AND GOVERNANCE

PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG

O N

E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y A N D G O V E R N A N C E

“ D I S C O V E R , M E N T O R , C O N N E C T ”

PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG

D I R E C T O R ’ S L E T T E R

PEPG ADVISORY BOARD COMMITTEE

Steve Klinsky (Chairman), New Mountain Capital, LLCCory Booker, United States Senator, New JerseyAlberto M. Carvalho, Miami-Dade County Public SchoolsCesar Conde, NBCUniversalMark Dalzell, Capital GroupBruce Douglas, Harvard Development CompanyTimothy Draper, Draper Fisher JurvetsonC. Boyden Gray, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCPhil Handy, Winter Park Capital CompanyRoger Hertog, Alliance Capital ManagementRichard Hough, Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLCAl Hubbard, E&A IndustriesJohn F. Kirtley, KLH Capital, L.P.Deborah McGriff, formerly NewSchools Venture FundJoseph Olchefske, Springboard EducationDaniel S. Peters, Lovett & Ruth Peters FoundationJames Piereson, William E. Simon FoundationMichael Podgursky, University of MissouriJerry Rappaport,

Phyllis and Jerome Lyle Rappaport FoundationNina S. Rees, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

PEPG AND EDUCATION NEXT STAFFPaul E. Peterson, DirectorMartin R. West, Deputy Director and Editor-in-Chief, Education NextAntonio M. Wendland, Associate DirectorIra Stoll, Managing Editor, Education NextMelissa Fall, Assistant Managing Editor, Education NextMichael B. Henderson, Polling DirectorNick Tavares, Research, Data, and Web ManagerHannah Benoit, Manuscript EditorKathleen Carroll, Manuscript EditorJacqueline Kerstetter, Communications ConsultantMichael Poor, Staff Assistant

PROGRAM ON EDUCATION POLICY & GOVERNANCEThe Taubman Center for State and Local Government, Harvard Kennedy School79 John F. Kennedy Street, Taubman 304Cambridge, MA 02138hks.harvard.edu/pepg • educationnext.orgpepg_administrator@hks.harvard.edu • 617-495-7976

THE FEDERAL EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT has returned school policy innovation from Capitol Hill’s dizzying heights to the quiet backwaters of state and local government. Those impatient for

dramatic change may be frustrated, but since 2015, when the law was passed, a beneath-the-surface alligator strategy has expanded parental choice opportunities in cities and states across the country.

PEPG discovered these developments this past May by bringing leaders and researchers together at a conference, held in conjunction with EdChoice, a non–profit foundation (pages 4–5). Encouraging news poured in from Miami, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Denver, Indianapolis, NewOrleans, and elsewhere. Jim Blew fromthe U.S. Department of Education gavea preview of federal efforts to stimulateinnovative thinking across the states.

We also learned from the latest Education Next survey (pages 10–11) that support is surging for school vouch-ers, tax credits, and charter schools.

On page 7, PEPG postdoctoral fellow M. Danish Shakeel briefs us on his study of school climate in the private and public sectors. Private-school principals reported a better school climate.

We are especially excited that generous donors have allowed us to expand our fellowship programs. Also, we are thrilled that students are learning from our Academic Visitors, who include: the civil servant who created the definitive testing program comparing U.S. student performance with that of peers abroad; a lead attorney for plaintiffs in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, in which the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the implications for education of the “free exercise of religion” clause of the First Amendment; the superintendent who introduced school reform to Camden, New Jersey; and a top policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Sincerely yours,

PAU L E . P E T E R S O N

Discover, Mentor, Connect

2 P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E hks.harvard.edu/pepg

Paul E. Peterson

hks.harvard.edu/pepg P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E 3

D I S C O V E R

Information about College Costs and Benefits Enhances College Aspirations

... if (and only if ) parents think children are prepared

MOST ADULTS, AND ESPECIALLY LESS-EDUCATED ONES, do not realize that the average earnings of an employee with a four-year

degree are 75% higher than those with no more than a high school education. Those potential earnings greatly exceed the cost of tuition at most public colleges and universities.

A number of behavioral economists have suggested that socioeconomic status (SES) gaps in college aspirations can be closed by providing parents and students with these key facts. Once families understand the benefits of college enrollment, they will prepare them-selves accordingly.

To see whether accurate information about college costs and benefits can in fact close SES gaps in parents’ aspirations for their children’s further education, we divided a nationally representative sample of parents participating in the 2018 Education Next

survey into two randomly chosen groups. Everyone was asked whether they wanted their children to pursue a four-year degree, a two-year degree, or no further education at all, but one group was first told the costs of going to college in their state and the earnings their children might expect if they returned to their community.

By calculating the differences in the prefer-ences of the two randomly picked groups of parents, we could see how information affects parents’ college aspirations for their children.

Contrary to what behavioral economists expect, we found that the information had an overall negative effect on parental preferences for college and that it widened socioeconomic gaps. But we also found that information had a different impact on those parents who thought

their children were “very prepared” academically for college as compared to those parents who were less sure.

Among those who thought their children were “very prepared,” we found clear positive effects of costs and earnings information on pref-erences for pursuit of a four-year college degree among low-SES parents. However, we found strong negative effects of the same informa-tion on less- educated, low-income parents if they did not think their children were well-prepared.

Information alone does not close the SES-aspiration gap. It is no less important, and very probably more important, for a children to be academi-cally prepared to go to college.

Excerpted from a PEPG working paper prepared by Albert Cheng, Michael B. Henderson, Paul E. Peterson, and Martin R. West.

Information alone does not close the SES-aspiration gap

Albert ChengCheng

Less-educatedparents

6.6 7.3

–8.5

Academic preparedness a key to closing SES-aspiration gap

7.0

Effects of economic information on parents’ aspirations by level of children’s college preparation

SOURCE: 2018 Education Next Survey

All parents Lower-income parents

Pe

rce

nta

ge

ch

ang

e in

like

liho

od

par

en

ts

pre

fer

child

ren

pu

rsu

e 4

-ye

ar d

eg

ree

20

10

0

-10

-20

n Unprepared n Prepared

–5.7

–16.9

4 P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E hks.harvard.edu/pepg

C O N N E C T

Education Cities: A decade of education reform in American cities

PEPG CONFERENCE / MAY 6–7, 2019

THE PAST DECADE HAS SEEN DRAMATIC CHANGES in urban education policy and politics. From new teacher-evaluation systems to expansions of school choice to renewed efforts toward racial and socioeco-nomic integration, cities have experimented with different approaches to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for their students. At a two-day conference, a group of researchers, journalists, policy analysts,

and leaders explored these ongoing developments-presenting case studies of education reform in 10 cities: Camden, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Washington, D. C., Milwaukee, New Orleans, San Antonio, and Miami.

Alberto Carvalho, superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools, with Derrell Bradford of 50CAN

Derrell Bradford, Michelle Rhee, and Deborah McGriff share a lighthearted moment between sessions.

Paul E. Peterson reviews research with James Blew, assistant secretary for planning, evaluation, and policy development at the U.S. Department of Education.

Ira Stoll (center), managing editor of Education Next, with Alan Borsuk of Marquette University, Jason Bedrick of EdChoice, and Beth Schueler of the University of Virginia

hks.harvard.edu/pepg P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E 5

C O N N E C T

Julie Marsh of the University of Southern California and co-presenter on the Los Angeles panel, and Susan Bush-Mecenas of Northwestern University

Robert Enlow, CEO of EdChoice, delivers opening remarks to kick off the Education Cities conference.

Paymon Rouhanifard of Propel America with co-discussant Deborah McGriff, formerly of NewSchools Venture Fund

SOMETHING IS GOING RIGHT in the fourth-largest school district in the country. Miami-Dade County Public Schools serve nearly 300,000 students: 93% are students of color, 66% are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, and 20% are English

language learners. From 2009 to 2017, Miami’s 4th-grade math and reading average on the National Assessment of Educational Progress rose eight and a half points (compared to a two-point increase among all large cities).

In a paper commissioned for the PEPG Education Cities Conference, Ron Matus argues that the credit belongs to Miami’s long-serving superintendent: Alberto Carvalho. According to Matus, Carvalho’s success can be attributed to three things: an embrace of school choice, the strategic use of data, and astute financial decisions.

In Miami, 61% of students are enrolled in some form of district choice, including magnet schools and career academies, among others. If you also include students attending charter or private schools, the number rises to 74%. “We’re unapologetic about our desire to dominate choice,”

says Carvalho.Every quarter, the

superintendent meets with each principal, reviewing trends in their schools, the interventions they are employing, and their future plans. This check-in fosters a data-driven environment in which school leaders are regularly asked to account for their progress or lack thereof.

When Carvalho was appointed in 2008, the district was deep in the red. With the help of federal stimulus funds and major cuts to the central administration, he righted Miami’s finances, preventing a wave of teacher layoffs. Impressed with the results over the last decade, Miami residents last year voted overwhelmingly for a higher property tax that would increase teacher salaries.

Buoyed by rising student achievement, Carvalho has cultivated sup-port among families, educators, and the community. In the country’s ongoing debates over education, Miami offers a compelling case for its unique brand of school reform.

Excerpted from a paper presented at the conference by Ron Matus, director of policy and public affairs at Step Up for Students.

PEPG CONFERENCE / MAY6–7, 2019

Surfing the TsunamiChoice, competition, and the transformation of

public education in Miami-Dade

Alberto Carvalho with Paul E. Peterson and Martin West

“We’re unapologetic about our desire to dominate choice,” says Carvalho

D I S C O V E R

PERHAPS THE SINGLE MOST PROMINENT TREND in contempo-rary American politics has been the surge in polarization over the past two

decades. Across an array of issues, Democrats and Republicans have grown increasingly distinct. Compromise across party lines is often seen as a betrayal of ideological principles and antithetical to future electoral success. The typi-cal portrayal of federal policymaking is one of excessive gridlock and dysfunction. Yet, it is in this context that two of the most significant fed-eral education laws, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, were passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion.

Using EdNext survey data from 2008 to 2014, I explored the conditions under which polarization and depolarization occur with respect to public opinion on education issues. Specifically, I investigated the extent to which (a) the avail-ability of education spending data, (b) the

provision of ideologically moderate policy endorse-ments from political elites, and (c) having children in the household caused partisans’ attitudes toward education issues to converge or diverge.

I found consistent evidence that the provision of education spending data had depolarizing conse-quences, but the effects of ideologically moderate political endorsements on polarization varied by issue and year. I also found tentative evidence in favor of a link between having children at home and reduced polarization on education issues.

These results provide some insight for those engaging in contemporary education-policy debates in an increasingly polarized political landscape. It appears that partisans can respond to some pieces of education policy information (specifically, spending data) in ways that are unconditioned by their partisan identities, potentially facilitating more open and productive debate. A similar dynamic may follow the information accrued and the experiences gleaned

from having children. However, the power of party affiliations can reemerge if prominent political elites take an explicit position in an ongoing debate. In some cases, partisans appear to remobilize in accordance with or in opposi-tion to that position. If political actors and ordinary citizens are interested in bipartisan solutions to education issues, the path forward may lie in the conversations and decisions that occur at less politically elevated levels, in which the blessings and curses of famously polarizing politicians can be kept safely at bay.

Abstracted from a forthcoming article in the journal Educa-tional Policy. David Houston is postdoctoral research fellow at PEPG.

Polarization and the Politics of EducationWhat moves partisan opinion?

By DAVID HOUSTON

Houston

Increased spending

Teacher salaries

Charter schools

Merit pay

Partisan gaps

n No child at home n Child at home

NOTE: Partisan gap is the average difference in support for a given policy between Democrats and Republicans; sample sizes vary by survey question.

SOURCE: Education Next Survey 2008–2014

Less polarization among those with children Democrats and Republicans with children at home are less polarized on education spending, teacher salaries, charter schools, and merit-based pay than Democrats and Republicans without children.

Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

ints

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Evidence favors a link between having children at home and reduced polarization on education issues

6 P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E hks.harvard.edu/pepg

David Houston

hks.harvard.edu/pepg P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E 7

D I S C O V E R

A GOOD SCHOOL CLIMATE PROVIDES children with better opportunities for learning and social engagement. But discipline

problems and even security challenges can interfere with an education-friendly environ-ment. How do the education climates of public and private schools compare?

To address this question, my colleague and I analyzed responses from a nationally repre-sentative government survey of school prin-cipals administered in 2011–12. Principals were asked many questions about broad topics that ranged from student bullying and racial tensions to student disrespect for teachers and 10 other topics.

No matter what the topic, principals reported a better

school climate if they were the head of a pri-vate school rather than a public one. These results were obtained even after adjusting for many aspects of the school, such as its size, student demographic characteristics, student-teacher ratio, location in an urban area, and percentage of teachers who were of minority background.

As compared to principals of public schools, those in charge of private schools are 4 percentage points less likely to say there is bullying at the school, 8 percentage points less likely to report widespread disorder in class-

rooms, 11 percentage points less likely to say they must deal with student acts of disrespect for teachers, and 13 percentage points less likely to have student racial tensions in comparison

to public schools. We also find that

private schools are less likely to employ school safety practices than public schools. After controlling for student and school character-istics, we find that pri-vate schools are about 6 percentage points less likely to require students to pass through metal detectors each day and 20 percentage points less likely to search for drugs using random dog sniffs.

Sociologist James Coleman suggested that schools are like prisons. In both, a small admin-istrative elite tries to maintain order over a large group that is forced to remain within the build-ing. As school safety measures intensify, the simi-larities between the two institutions increase. It is not surprising that many people will pay large sums of money to place their children in a private school. Unfortunately, that choice is currently limited to those with ample resources.

Abstracted from an article by M. Danish Shakeel and Corey DeAngelis in the Journal of School Choice. Shakeel is postdoctoral research fellow at PEPG.

Children Are Safer in Private SchoolsBy M. DANISH SHAKEEL

Principals reported a better school climate if they were the head of a private school rather than a public one

Shakeel

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Studentbullying

Widespread disorder in the

classroom

Student acts of disrespectfor teachers

Student racial tensions

100

80

60

40

20

0

Difference in percentage of principals saying problems exist in their schools

n Public n Private

NOTE: The figure shows summary statistics for public-and private-school principals.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of 2011–2012 School and Staffing Survey.

More school problems exist in public schools than in private schoolsIn addition to lower likelihood of crime-related incidences at their campuses, principals in private schools report lower likelihood of school safety practices than their public-school counterparts.

M. Danish Shakeel

M E N T O R

THE PROGRAM ON EDUCATION POLICY AND GOVERNANCE (PEPG) offers fellowships in education entrepreneurship to graduate and postgraduate students with the partial support of a gener-ous grant from the Charles Koch Foundation. At the master’s level, the program provides two-year half-tuition fellowships for those pursuing the Master of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School

or an equivalent master’s program at Harvard University. Spring 2019 saw the graduation of four fellows from the program and the addition of five new fellows in the fall.

Catching Up with Our Education EntrepreneursFellows and Graduates

AFTER COMPLETING his Ph.D. in government and social policy at Harvard University (2019), CARLOS XABEL LASTRA-ANADÓN is currently a postdoctoral research fellow at the Europe Center’s Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford and is assistant professor at IE University in Madrid, Spain. His research interests lie at the intersection of political economy and education policy.

STANDING BEFORE A HISTORIC SCHOOL HOUSE in Leadville, Colorado, ZACHARY S. MARTINEZ (MPP/JD Georgetown Law School

2019) reflects on his summers as a legal intern at the U.S. Department of Education and at Advocates

for Justice and Education, where he worked with parents and students. He also worked in the office

of Senator Michael Bennet and in the office of then Colorado governor John Hickenlooper as

an education policy intern. Zach is now starting to practice law at a private firm in Colorado.

A LECTURER OF POLITICAL SCIENCE at University College London, THOMAS GIFT (Postdoctoral Fellow 2015–2016) works at the nexus of comparative politics and political economy, with a particular focus on the politics of education and human capital. He is currently working on several projects related to education, including a British Academy-funded grant that examines attitudes toward international students in the United Kingdom.

8 P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E hks.harvard.edu/pepg

hks.harvard.edu/pepg P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E 9

M E N T O R

HAVING COMPLETED the first year of an MPP at Harvard Kennedy School, SAMANTHA BATEL (MPP/PhD-Harvard Graduate School of Education 2018–2024) started a doctoral pro-gram at Harvard Graduate School of Education in the fall of 2019. During the summer, she was a Rappaport Institute Public Policy Fellow and worked at Boston Public Schools in their Academics and Student Support Services for Equity team.

THE FOUNDER of Operation American

Dream in Florida, CHARLES NADD

(MPP/MBA Harvard Business School 2021)

stands with his wife Shannon and the first responders they sup-port. Their nonprofit raises partial college scholarships for the

children of fallen first responders and

military personnel across the state.

AFTER GRADUATING, DANIELA JOZIC (MPA 2019) joined the New South Wales Department of Education, a depart-ment of the Government of New South Wales, Australia. Prior to attend-ing Harvard, Daniela man-aged education policy and advocacy initiatives across Australian state govern-ment and at UNESCO.

10 P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E hks.harvard.edu/pepg

D I S C O V E R

THOUGH SCHOOL CHOICE was a minor issue in the 2016 election, it

has since taken center stage. When President Donald Trump nominated Betsy DeVos, chair of a pro-choice advocacy group, to be his sec-retary of education, her con-firmation divided the Senate so evenly the vice president broke the tie. She is one of the longer-serving members of Trump’s cabinet and, far

from retreating from choice advocacy, is backing a bill asking each state to use some of its federal grant funds to design a program giving low-income families more educa-tional alternatives.

How has public opinion responded to the political debate over school choice?

We look at trends in public opinion on three school- choice issues between 2016 and 2019. We find that public opin-ion about several school-choice policies has shifted closer to the views held by Secretary DeVos. On one topic—charter schools—we see polarization along party lines.

We discovered these changes in public opinion by asking each year since 2016 the same questions about three school-choice policies.

Targeted vouchers. In 2016, a near majority of the public opposed “a proposal [to] give low-income families with children in public schools a wider choice, by allowing

them to enroll their children in private schools instead, with government helping to pay the tuition.” Forty-eight percent said they were against targeted vouchers, and 37% liked it. In 2019, a near majority (49%) say they favor vouchers for low-income families, with 41% expressing opposition. Both Republicans and Democrats are sup-porting targeted vouchers at higher levels than they were four years earlier.

Tax Credits. Tax credits for “individual and corporate donations that pay for scholarships to help low-income parents send their children to private schools” constitute the most popular of school-choice programs. Proponents can make the case to state legislatures that the tax credits save dol-lars for state taxpayers, as the cost of the scholarship in many states is more than offset by the decrease in state aid to local

districts. Back in 2016, this pro-posal commanded a 53% to 29% majority. In 2018, support edged up to 57%, with opposition slip-ping slightly to 26%. That level of support has remained steady in 2019 (58% to 28%). Even in an era of polarization, tax credits retain bipartisan support.

Charter schools. A decade ago, charters seemed to be the one choice initiative backed by Democrats and Republicans alike. Since the 2016 election, teacher unions have launched a vociferous campaign against charter schools. Many candi-dates seeking the presidential nomination of the Democratic

Charter support has so far withstood the heavy criticisms the sector has recently endured, but growing divisions along partisan lines pose a serious political risk

School Choice in the Trump EraBy PAUL E. PETERSON

The following results are worth highlighting:

n Support for school vouchers is growing. If Republicans gain ground in the next elec-tion cycle or two, one could see continued expansion of voucher initiatives.

n Charter support has so far withstood the heavy criticisms the sector has recently endured, but growing divisions along partisan lines pose a serious political risk.

n Tax credits that fund scholarships for low-income children to attend private schools command a large and durable base of public support.

Betsy DeVos

hks.harvard.edu/pepg P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E 11

D I S C O V E RFig 1

Support for and opposition to targeted vouchers

Pe

rce

nta

ge

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

525049

44

41

37

2016 2017 2018 2019

Support for and opposition to tax credits

2016 2017 2018 2019

Pe

rce

nta

ge

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

202016 2017 2018 2019

Pe

rce

nta

ge

65

5856

2926

22

2016 2017 2018 2019

Support for and opposition to charter schools

Pe

rce

nta

ge

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

Pe

rce

nta

ge

61

48

4039

27

General Public (support)

Republicans (support)

Democrats (support)

General Public (oppose)

Republicans (oppose)

Democrats (oppose)

QUESTIONS: For exact wording, see complete results at ednext.org/files/2019ednextpoll.pdf

Growing support for school choice, but a partisan divide on charters

Republicans and Democrats support targeted and universal vouchers at higher levels in 2019 than in 2016, and scholarships funded by tax credits continue to command broad bipartisan support. The partisan divide has widened on support for charter schools, however, growing to 21 percentage points in 2019 from 15 percentage points in 2016.

Party are adding their voices to the anti-charter campaign. In the early days of the Trump administration, forceful

attacks on charters seemed to be having an impact on public thinking. When respondents were asked in 2017 whether they favored the “formation of charter schools, which are publicly funded but are not managed by the local school board,” only 39% backed them, 12 percentage points fewer than in 2016. Charter support recovered modestly to 44% in 2018, with opposition down to 35%. This year, support for charters has surged back to 50%, essentially the level

enjoyed in 2016. However, opposition, at 36%, has remained as high as it was in 2017, with fewer people taking a neutral position. There are also signs of partisan polarization. On the one side, Republicans have become more committed to charter schools. Simultaneously, Democrats have backed away from charter schools.

Paul E. Peterson is the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government at Harvard University and senior editor of Education Next.

12 P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E hks.harvard.edu/pepg

M E N T O R

Visiting PractitionersExperts share their knowledge and experiences

OVER THE YEARS, PEPG HAS HOSTED many notable and talented academic visitors and practitioners from within the United States and from countries abroad. They have enriched the

quality of its teaching, research, and outreach missions. This invaluable tradition continues.

ROBERT PONDISCIO is senior fellow and vice president for external affairs at the Fordham

Institute. He is also a senior adviser to Democracy Prep Public Schools, a network of high-perform-ing charter schools based in Harlem, New York.

RICHARD KOMER was a senior litigation attorney for the Institute for Justice, retiring after 25 years

of service. He is lead attorney for plaintiffs in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, in

which the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the implications for education of the “free exercise

of religion” clause of the First Amendment.

MICHAEL HORN is co-founder of and a distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. He also serves as the head of strategy for the Entangled Group, an education venture studio, and as a senior partner for Entangled Solutions, a strategy consultancy for the education ecosystem.

hks.harvard.edu/pepg P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E 13

M E N T O R

ANDREAS SCHLEICHER is director for educa-tion and skills, and special advisor on education policy to the secretary-general at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He initiated and oversees the Programme for International Student Assessment.

MICHELLE RHEE is the founder of StudentsFirst, a nonprofit organization committed to American education. She is also a former chancellor of the Washington, D.C., public schools.

PAYMON ROUHANIFARD is co-founder and CEO at

Propel America and former superintendent of Camden Public Schools, New Jersey.

14 P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E hks.harvard.edu/pepg

C O N N E C T

THE WAR ON POVERTY DRAGS ON. President Trump’s budget proposes heavy cuts in domestic spending but not to compensatory-education pro-grams, which aim to lift the achievement levels of

disadvantaged students. Since 1980, the federal government has spent almost $500 billion (in 2017 dollars) on compensatory education and another $250 billion on Head Start programs for low-income preschoolers. Forty-five states, acting under court orders, threats, or settlements, have directed money specifically to their neediest districts. How much have these efforts helped?

To find out, we tracked achievement gaps between those

born into families with the highest and lowest levels of education and household resources. We looked at both the gap between the top and bottom tenths of the socioeco-nomic distribution (the 90–10 gap) and the top and bottom quarters (the 75–25 gap).

Our finding, published by EducationNext, is that the gaps have not narrowed over the past 50 years, despite all the money spent on that objective. In 1971, shortly after the launch of the War on Poverty, 14-year-olds in the bottom decile trailed those in the top decile by three to four years’ worth of school. For those who were born in 2001 and turned 14 in 2015, the gap was still three to four years. Similarly, the 75–25 gap has remained wide—between two and a half and three years.

We examined 98 separate assess-ments of student achievement in math, reading, and science, admin-istered to adolescents born between 1954 and 2001 by the U.S. govern-ment and trustworthy international

The War on Poverty Remains a StalemateEducation gaps between socioeconomic classes haven’t narrowed in the past half century

By ERIC A. HANUSHEK and PAUL E. PETERSON

Teachers with a bachelor’s degree

A persistent achievement gap between

For students born between 1954 and 2001, the achievement gap between students in the top and bottom deciles of the socioeconomic distribution remained as wide as a full standard deviation—the equivalent of three to four years of learning. The gap between students in the top and bottom quartiles also persisted over this near half century.

Differences in test performance by socioeconomic status

Ave

rag

e g

ap (

stan

dar

d d

evi

atio

ns)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

90–10 gap

75–25 gap

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Birth year

NOTE: Markers indicate years a test was administered. SOURCE: Tests administered by LTT-NAEP, Main-NAEP, PISA, and TIMSS

President Lyndon Johnson on the porch of a Martin County Kentuckyhome in 1964 as he launched his “War on Poverty” haves and have-nots

hks.harvard.edu/pepg P R O G R A M O N E D U C A T I O N P O L I C Y & G O V E R N A N C E 15

C O N N E C T

agencies. The surveys also collected information on parents’ educational attainment and the material posses-sions in the home, thereby supplying information needed to ascertain the students’ socioeconomic back-grounds. Surprisingly, we were the first to use this valuable storehouse of information to examine the success of the War on Poverty.

The persistence of the 90–10 and 75–25 gaps is not caused by changes in schools’ ethnic composition. It is true that the white share of the school-age population has fallen, from 75% to 54%, but the gaps are as sustained for white students as they are for the

school-age population as a whole. The black-white test-score gap did narrow, but that progress halted during the past quarter century.

It wouldn’t be so bad if a rising tide were lifting all boats—that is, if haves and have-nots alike were reaching new levels of accomplish-ment, despite persistent gaps. But the past quarter century has seen no gains in overall student performance at 17. Gains observed at 14 dissipate by the time students reach the last year of high school and are expected to enter the workforce or college.

Whether and how these gaps can be narrowed is beyond the scope of our study. But it’s clear that what America has been doing, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, hasn’t worked.

Excerpted from an op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on March 17, 2019. Eric Hanushek is senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

The gaps are sustained for white students as they are for the school-age population as a whole

r-1

Visits for EducationNext.orgTraffic to the EdNext website have rebounded in 2019, with total visitors projected to be the highest since 2016.

Vis

its

2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

20092010

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172018

2

019*

pro

ject

ed

r-2

NOTE: Influential media is defined as top 30 newspapers ranked by highest circulation, the top 30 magazines ranked by ad revenue, and influential education media.

Hit

s

20052006

2007

20082009

20102011

20122013

20142015

20162017

2018

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Influential Media HitsMajor media hits have continued to climb in recent years

In the shared dropbox folder, I've updated the media hits chart with a data point for 2019, through Aug. 31st. The number is "133," if that makes life easier.

*Media hits as of August 31, 2019

NOTE: Influential media is defined as top 30 newspapers ranked by highest circulation, the top 30 magazines ranked by ad revenue, and influential education media.

Hit

s

20052006

2007

20082009

20102011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20182019

*

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Influential Media HitsMajor media hits have continued to climb in recent years

Education Next Footprint

ANNUAL REPORT 2020

HARVARD PROGRAM ON EDUCATION POLICY AND GOVERNANCE

PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG

PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG PEPG