2 0 0 5 P u b l i c O p i n i o n S u r v e y on Education in Indiana Jonathan A. Plucker Terry E. Spradlin Jason S. Zapf Rosanne W. Chien Rose A. Jackson January 4, 2006 Prepared by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 2005 Public Opinion Survey on Education in Indiana Jonathan A. Plucker Terry E. Spradlin Jason S. Zapf Rosanne W. Chien Rose A. Jackson and Associates January 4, 2006 Prepared by the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Center for Evaluation & Education Policy 509 East Third Street Bloomington, IN 47401 812-855-4438 Toll-Free in North America: 800-511-6575 Fax: 812-856-5890 E-mail CEEP: [email protected] Web Site: http://ceep.indiana.edu/ Acknowledgements The Center for Evaluation and Education Policy appreciates the individuals who pro- vided insight and feedback on the develop- ment and refinement of the questions included in the 2005 Public Opinion Survey on Education in Indiana. In particular, we are grateful to John Ellis, Executive Director, Indiana Association of Public School Super- intendents; Stan Jones, Commissioner, Indi- ana Commission for Higher Education; Cheryl Orr, Administrator, Indiana’s Edu- cation Roundtable; Bill Riley, Senior Fiscal Analyst, Indiana Department of Education; Lowell Rose, Executive Director Emeritus, Phi Delta Kappa International; and David Shane, Executive Assistant for Education and Workforce Issues, Office of Governor Mitch Daniels, for their assistance. Many of the questions included in the 2005 Survey were retained from the previous two public opinion surveys, which in turn were also based on input received from a number of policymakers and education stakeholder groups. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Table of Contents Acknowledgements I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 III. Summary of Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 IV. Detailed Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 A. Overall Evaluation of Public Schools in Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 B. School Funding and Taxation Matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 C. Pre-School and Kindergarten Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 D. High School Drop-Out Rate Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 E. ISTEP+ and School Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 F. School Choice, Vouchers, and Charter Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 G. Teacher Quality and Pay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 H. No Child Left Behind Act and PL 221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 I. Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Appendix A Summary Tables for Open-ended Question 3B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1 Appendix B Demographic Results by Question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B1 Center for Evaluation and Education Policy i of i Center for Evaluation and Education Policy I Introduction and expectations for high student achieve- ment are increasing — in large part due to In November 2004, Mitch Daniels was the accountability provisions of the No Child elected as Indiana’s first Republican gover- Left Behind Act of 2001. Therefore, educa- nor since Governor Robert Orr’s term ended tion will remain among the top policy priori- in 1988. Upon taking office, Governor ties for the state of Indiana for the Daniels stated his intent to bring new per- foreseeable future. spectives and priorities to state government. To gauge the level of public awareness, This approach prompted many stakeholders understanding, and support for a number of to ponder what the future would hold for K- K-12 education issues, the Center for Evalu- 12 public education. Would the governor ation and Education Policy (CEEP) con- sustain past initiatives focused on standards, ducted the 2003 Public Opinion Survey on assessment, and accountability, or would he Education in Indiana (referred to as the chart a new course to reform public educa- “Benchmark Survey” in this report). The for- tion? As the governor enters his second year mat and structure of the 2003 Survey pro- in office, his views on education policy are vided a research methodology that facilitated beginning to crystallize. These views, and replication and allows for longitudinal com- the governor’s positions on education issues parison of results. such as school funding, testing, and account- Subsequently, the 2004 Public Opinion Sur- ability, have the potential to sway public vey on Education in Indiana (referred to as opinion. the “Year 2 Survey” in this report) was con- In addition to how the actions of the gover- ducted in November of 2004. The results of nor impact the K-12 education landscape, the both the Benchmark Survey and Year 2 Sur- legislature continues to grapple with many vey generally reflected trends of positive education issues, including school funding. attitudes and perceptions for Indiana citizens State budget cuts and delayed payments to concerning K-12 education. The Year 3 Sur- schools that were initiated in 2002 have not vey provided the opportunity to see if these yet been restored. Districts continue to con- trends would continue, or whether changes sider program reductions and limitations, in in the education policy climate have led to addition to teacher layoffs, in an effort to less favorable views about public education. make ends meet. Educators are faced with tighter budgets at a time when the demands Center for Evaluation and Education Policy 1 of 42 In preparing this survey, many questions Section III), and then, for comparison pur- were retained from the Benchmark and Year poses, are shown disaggregated by northern, 2 Surveys. Other questions were modified or central, and southern Indiana regions, as well added to ensure that the primary education as by demographic categories (see Section policy issues confronting Indiana were IV). addressed (e.g., school funding, P-16 initia- tives, ISTEP+ testing, vouchers, and teacher salaries) or to improve the quality of the sur- vey questions. The 2005 Public Opinion Sur- vey on Education in Indiana examined public perceptions on the following issues: A. Overall Evaluation of Public Schools in Indiana B. School Funding and Taxation Matters C. Pre-school and Kindergarten Issues D. High School Drop-out Rate Issues E. ISTEP+ and School Accountability F. School Choice, Vouchers, and Charter Schools G. Teacher Quality and Pay H. The No Child Left Behind Act and PL 221 I. The Achievement Gap in Indiana This report summarizes the findings of the Year 3 Survey. Where comparisons were possible, Year 3 Survey results were com- pared with those from the Benchmark and Year 2 Surveys to identify trends in public attitudes and perceptions. Results are reported in summary for Indiana overall (see 2 of 42 Center for Evaluation and Education Policy