Tag: Voters

  • Have Democrats Lost Voters’ Trust on Education? Not According to Most Polls – The 74

    Have Democrats Lost Voters’ Trust on Education? Not According to Most Polls – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Chalkbeat Ideas is a new section featuring reported columns on the big ideas and debates shaping American schools. Sign up for the Ideas newsletter to follow our work.

    Democrats are in disarray on education — according to a growing chorus of Democrats.

    A variety of left-leaning journalists, politicians, and advocates have all recently claimed that voters have become disillusioned with the party’s approach to schools. Often, these commentators cite anger over pandemic-era closures and argue that Democrats need to embrace tougher academic standards or school choice.

    “For decades, when pollsters asked voters which party they trusted more on education, Democrats maintained, on average, a 14-point advantage. More recently that gap closed, then flipped to favor Republicans,” wrote former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel last month.

    Is this emerging conventional wisdom true, though? This assertion has typically relied on one or two surveys, rather than a comprehensive look at the data. So I compiled all publicly available polls I could find that asked voters which party they preferred on education.

    The verdict was clear: In more than a dozen surveys conducted this year by eight different organizations, all but one showed Democrats with an edge on education. This ranged from 4 to 15 points. Among all 14 polls, the median advantage was 9 points. Although Democrats appear to have briefly lost this edge a few years ago, voters again now tend to trust Democrats on the issue of education, broadly defined.

    The narrative that Republicans had wrested the issue of education from Democrats emerged in 2021, after Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin won a come-from-behind victory in the governor’s race after campaigning on parents’ rights.

    Long-running data from the Winston Group, a political consulting firm, showed that in late 2021 and early 2022 Republicans really had eroded Democrats’ lead on education. The parties were even briefly tied for the first time since the early 2000s, when former President George W. Bush was championing No Child Left Behind. Polling commissioned in 2022 and 2023 by Democrats for Education Reform, a group that backs charter schools and vouchers, also showed Democrats falling behind on education.

    Since then, though, Democrats appear to have regained their edge. In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, the party held at least a 10-point lead, according to Winston Group. Other polls from last year also found that more voters preferred Democrats’ approach on education, even as the party lost the presidency.

    Emanuel pointed me to polling from 2022. “Democrats have not gained ground as much as Trump has cost GOP gains they have made,” he says when asked about the more recent surveys.

    This year in Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger easily won in her bid to replace Youngkin. Education was one of her stronger issues, according to a Washington Post survey.

    Some argue that these election results disprove the idea that Democrats are losing on schools. “That’s not what panned out at all,” says Jennifer Berkshire, a progressive author who writes and teaches about education. She notes that the Republican governor candidate in New Jersey also tried to make schools an issue and lost badly.

    The Winston poll shows Democrats’ advantage is currently below its peak between 2006 and 2009 but is comparable to many other periods, including the tail end of the Obama administration and part of the first Trump administration.

    Keep in mind: These surveys ask about education broadly, not just K-12 schools. When given the option, a good chunk of voters don’t endorse either party’s approach. For instance, a YouGov survey found Democrats up 39%-32% on education with another 29% saying they weren’t sure or that the parties were about the same.

    The one public poll in which Democrats did not have an advantage came from Blue Rose Research, a Democratic-aligned firm. Ali Mortell, its head of research, says different survey methodologies can lead to different results.

    Regardless, she wants to see Democratic politicians lean into the issue more. “Say they do have that trust advantage right now, [education] is still not something that they’re really talking about a lot,” Mortell says.

    One of the top messages that resonates with voters focuses on addressing teachers’ concerns about stagnant pay and large class sizes, Blue Rose polling finds.

    Democrats’ lead on education doesn’t appear to have grown much over the last year, according to surveys from Winston, YouGov, and Ipsos. That’s somewhat surprising since Trump’s approval has sunk generally and is low on education specifically.

    Jorge Elorza, the CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, points to a survey it commissioned showing the two parties tied when it comes to making sure schools emphasize academic achievement. “Democrats should be focused on delivering results,” he says. “When we ask voters about that, it’s a toss up.” A separate DFER poll found the party with only a 1-point lead on who voters trust to ensure “students are prepared for success after high school.”

    Democrats’ overall polling advantage on education does not necessarily speak to the substantive merits of their policies, however. One analysis found that Democratic-leaning states have seen bigger declines in student test scores in recent years. At a national level, Democrats have not offered a particularly clear message on K-12 education, unlike Trump.

    “For the last six years there’s [been] no proactive agenda for Democrats on educational excellence,” says Emanuel.

    The party’s approach to schools has clearly lost a segment of America’s political tastemakers including center-left nonprofit executives, political strategists, and even some Democratic politicians. Yet, despite insistent assertions otherwise, regular voters don’t seem to share this view, at least at the moment.

    I relied on the following polls from this year, with Democrats’ lead in parentheses: Blue Rose Research (February, tied); Fox News (July +15); Ipsos (February +6, April +4, October +7); Napolitan News Service (August +9, October +6); Navigator (August +9); Strength in Numbers (May +11, October +15); YouGov (May +7); Winston (April +15, June +14, August/September +11). To find these surveys, I conducted my own search and asked a variety of large pollsters, as well as a number of advocates. Differences in results between polls can come from random error, as well as differences in sampling and question wording. Although the precise wording varied, each poll asked voters which party they preferred on education.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • The surprising pragmatism of Reform UK voters towards international education

    The surprising pragmatism of Reform UK voters towards international education

    In polls and focus groups across the country, Reform voters have been singing from the same hymn sheet. They share a deep sense of national and local decline. They view the country through a lens of crumbling high streets, strained public services, and an economy seemingly trapped in a doom loop.

    In this environment, they have developed a corrosive scepticism towards the modern university model, judging it a failed investment that saddles their children with debt for a degree that is only good for getting through graduate recruiters’ first sift of CVs. They demand contraction, utility, and accountability for a system they believe serves neither the student nor the economy.

    To delve into these views, Public First conducted focus groups with those who currently intend to vote Reform UK in university towns in England. This revealed a surprising chink of light in an otherwise very gloomy outlook on universities: focus group participants were broadly very positive about international students.

    Foreign subsidy as necessary evil

    This needs to come with a heavy caveat: when we polled Reform voters, we found that 63 per cent agree that the UK government should restrict international student numbers in order to cut net migration. Cutting net migration remains a top priority for these voters, and for many, it appears that this should be done by any means necessary.

    However, when confronted with the economics, Reform voters we have spoken to reveal a sophisticated and transactional view of international student recruitment. For them, students from overseas are not a problem to be solved, but a “great business.”

    As polling has consistently demonstrated, the typical Reform voter is highly sceptical of mass, unmanaged immigration. Yet, when asked about foreign students, the response of those who live in university towns was not hostility, but economic pragmatism.

    They see international recruitment as a clear, contained, and mutually beneficial transaction: the UK offers a world-class education (a product) and, in return, receives a higher rate of tuition fee (a profitable revenue stream). The students come to study, they contribute economically, and then – the crucial expectation – they either contribute to the UK economy or they leave.

    This isn’t merely tolerance; it’s a qualified acceptance rooted in financial necessity. In these voters’ minds, these lucrative international fees act as the foreign subsidy that keeps the entire system afloat. As one participant noted, “If universities can’t stay open because they haven’t got any foreign students, then that is a detriment to UK students.” The implication is clear: to maintain a domestic higher education offering, the international revenue stream must be protected.

    The conditions for goodwill

    This surprising goodwill, however, is fragile and rests on extremely strict conditions. Voters grant the sector a licence to recruit internationally only as long as two core boundaries are strictly maintained.

    No back doors: The arrangement must remain a transactional exchange, not a migration loophole. Support instantly evaporates when student visas are perceived as a “back door” into the country, particularly when students bring dependents or “disappear” into the country during the degree programme, or after graduation. The transaction is valid only if the purpose is learning, not permanent residency. “If you’re coming to learn, then you come to learn. You don’t bring your family, your dog, your cat and your goldfish,” argued one voter.

    No crowding out: Crucially, if voters feel that their children are being denied places in favour of higher-paying overseas customers, the economic argument collapses under the weight of perceived injustice.

    Despite the conditional acceptance of international fees, the core challenge for universities remains their perceived lack of utility to their students, and in their local communities. While Reform voters are pragmatic about international revenue streams, they are profoundly sceptical about the value of many domestic degrees that this income subsidises, and they see very little economic spillover in their towns: “…the areas outside of the city centre, I can’t see what benefit [universities] have.”

    The sector cannot win over these key voters – and thus cannot escape the threat of cuts from political parties who want their support – by simply defending the status quo. Making the case to this influential group of voters requires clearly showing how international students are paying for local resources and subsidising domestic places, while demonstrating robust checks that ensure the system is not abused.

    More widely, universities need to move beyond abstract civic rhetoric and show tangible value, taking concerted action to ensure and evidence that all degree courses benefit the student, the community and/or the country at large.

    The support for international students presents a unique opportunity. It is the one pillar of the current HE model that Reform voters’ economic logic allows them to broadly accept, even if this acceptance is currently secondary to the desire to cut net migration.

    The sector must leverage this pragmatic lifeline to pave the way to a secure future, while not telling but showing voters that their domestic offering is part of the solution to the UK’s economic doom loop.

    Source link

  • Missouri Voters Approve Four-Day School Week in Two Districts, Showing Rising Support – The 74

    Missouri Voters Approve Four-Day School Week in Two Districts, Showing Rising Support – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    When the Independence School District announced it was switching to a four-day week during the 2023-24 school year, it drew questions from local families and statewide officials.

    Parents wondered what kind of child care they would have on days without classroom instruction. And lawmakers debated whether the state needed to intervene.

    Ultimately, Missouri’s General Assembly passed a law requiring a vote for non–rural school districts to authorize a four-day week.

    On Tuesday, the Independence and Hallsville school districts became the first large districts to receive the approval of voters to continue with four-day weeks.

    “I knew that the majority of our community supported it,” Hallsville Superintendent Tyler Walker told The Independent. “I was a little bit surprised to see how much support it was.”

    In Hallsville, residents had two questions on the ballot related to the school district. One asked about the four-day week and the other was a bond measure previously passed in April but not confirmed by the State Auditor.

    The election drew 25% of registered voters, according to the Boone County Clerk, and 75% of those voted in favor of the four-day school week. The vote authorizes the schedule for the next 10 years, when then the district will have to hold another special election.

    Walker didn’t think the margin would be that wide. Earlier surveys from the district’s 2022 adoption of the schedule put approval at around 60%.

    He believes that the district’s growing success on standardized tests and other publicly available metrics have given families confidence that the four-day week isn’t such a bad thing.

    “Our community has grown to appreciate the four day week more after experiencing it for a few years,” he said.

    Todd Fuller, director of communications for the Missouri State Teachers Association, told The Independent that voters in districts who have already been operating in a four-day week like Independence and Hallsville have an idea of how it works for their students. The state law, passed in 2024, will require a vote prior to the schedule’s adoption for those who do not already adopt the abbreviated week.

    “Anyone who’s a constituent of the district has had time to digest this process, and they’ve been able to decide over a two-year period whether it’s been beneficial or not beneficial for their kids,” Fuller said. “So if they are expressing that feeling with their vote, then we’re going to have a pretty good understanding of what they really want.”

    The association doesn’t have an official stance on the four-day week. But Fuller said the teachers it represents have been pleased with the schedule.

    Jorjana Pohlman, president of Independence’s branch of the Missouri National Education Association, told The Independent that the overall sentiment is positive from the district’s educators.

    Mondays out of the classroom have become a good time for teachers to have doctor’s appointments, spend time with their families and plan for the week ahead, she said.

    “In the beginning, it was fear of the unknown for families as well as teachers,” she said. “A lot of teachers had the attitude of, ‘Let’s try it.’ They, I think overall, felt it was a positive thing.”

    A study by Missouri State University researchers looked at recent applicants to teaching positions in Independence, finding that the four-day week was a key part of the district’s recruitment.

    In particular, 63% of applicants rated the four-day schedule as a top-three reason for applying, and 27% said it was their top priority.

    The study also looked at the value of the four-day week for applicants, asking how much they would sacrifice in salary to work at a district with the schedule. On average, applicants were willing to sacrifice $2267 annually for the four-day week.

    Walker said the schedule has also improved recruitment in Hallsville, with a dramatic uptick in veteran teachers applying to positions.

    With teachers coming to Independence schools particularly for their schedule, some worried that returning to a five-day week would have large consequences for staffing. But Pohlman said a survey showed that the loss of educators is less than many would think.

    “The educators, they care deeply about their students, and they want what’s best for students and for the community, whether it’s four day week or five day week,” she said. “They are still going to be committed.”

    Almost a third of Missouri districts have adopted a four-day week, with around 91% of those districts in rural settings. Only districts in cities with at least 30,000 residents, or those located in Jackson, Clay, St. Louis, Jefferson and St. Charles counties, must call for a vote before moving to a four-day week.

    Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Voters want AI political speech protected – and lawmakers should listen

    Voters want AI political speech protected – and lawmakers should listen

    This essay was originally published in 24sight’s The Vox Populi section on June 24, 2025.

    As artificial intelligence plays a growing role in political discourse, lawmakers across the country have rushed to propose new regulations over fears that misinformation will proliferate with the new technology. But new polling suggests these efforts may not fully reflect public sentiment and serve as a red flag for lawmakers when their state legislatures reconvene in the fall.

    A recent national survey conducted by Morning Consult for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression finds that American voters strongly support prioritizing free speech when crafting AI regulations, even amid growing concerns about AI’s impact.

    Sixty percent of voters say AI-generated content poses a greater threat to elections than government regulation of it. Yet when pressed to choose between stopping deceptive content and protecting free speech, voters side with free speech, 47% to 37%. That support cuts across political lines.

    These numbers also tell a complicated story: Americans are uneasy about AI, but they’re more concerned about the government using AI regulation as a tool to silence dissent, just like many Americans feel about the government regulating content on social media. Our most recent survey shows a striking 81% worry that rules governing election-related AI content could be misused to suppress criticism of elected officials. And over half fear that making it a crime to publish altered political content could chill legitimate political commentary.

    These aren’t abstract fears. Across the country, lawmakers have introduced, and even enacted, bills that would target the mere sharing of AI-generated political content, no matter the context or intent. In Texas and Vermont, for example, proposed legislation cast such a wide net that distributing satire, parody, criticism, or even memes would have been banned or otherwise ensnared in regulation. Ordinary citizens, not just political campaigns, would face penalties for posting altered images of politicians online.

    Americans have the right to speak, joke, criticize, and comment freely, regardless of whether they use AI as an expressive tool in doing so. When lawmakers write vague or sweeping rules about what people can say about candidates, they silence the very public discourse that elections foster.

    Indeed, 28% of voters say government regulation of AI-generated or AI-altered content would make them less likely to share content. That’s not just a statistic, it’s a warning sign. Lawmakers risk silencing voters when their voices matter most. And the effect is even greater among young people, who are significantly more likely to engage with and create AI-generated content. When nearly a third of voters, especially the next generation of political voices, are deterred from participating in public discourse, we’re not just regulating technology — we’re shrinking the space for political engagement.

    Not every datapoint in the polling breaks in favor of free speech. Protecting speech commands broad support, yet many voters also favor checks on misinformation. In the same FIRE survey, while 77% of voters think preserving the right to freedom of speech should be the government’s main priority when making laws that govern the use of AI, 74% of voters believe it’s more important to protect people from misinformation than it is to protect free speech.

    Even so, the poll suggests many voters want any effort to curb misinformation to have firm safeguards for open debate. Many bills on the table this year definitely missed that mark.

    Technologies evolve. The principles of the First Amendment do not. In our system of government, the answer to bad speech isn’t censorship. It’s more speech.

    Source link

  • Voters strongly support prioritizing freedom of speech in potential AI regulation of political messaging, poll finds

    Voters strongly support prioritizing freedom of speech in potential AI regulation of political messaging, poll finds

    • 47% say protecting free speech in politics is the most important priority, even if that lets some deceptive content slip through
    • 28% say government regulation of AI-generated or AI-altered content would make them less likely to share content on social media
    • 81% showed concern about government regulation of election-related AI content being abused to suppress criticism of elected officials

    PHILADELPHIA, June 5, 2025 — Americans strongly believe that lawmakers should prioritize protecting freedom of speech online rather than stopping deceptive content when it comes to potential regulation of artificial intelligence in political messaging, a new national poll of voters finds.

    The survey, conducted by Morning Consult for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, reflects a complicated, or even conflicted, public view of AI: People are wary about artificial intelligence but are uncomfortable with the prospect of allowing government regulators to chill speech, censor criticism and prohibit controversial ideas.

    “This poll reveals that free speech advocates have their work cut out for them when it comes to making our case about the important principles underpinning our First Amendment, and how they apply to AI,” said FIRE Director of Research Ryne Weiss. “Technologies may change, but strong protections for free expression are as critical as ever.” 

    Sixty percent of those surveyed believe sharing AI-generated content is more harmful to the electoral process than government regulation of it. But when asked to choose, more voters (47%) prioritize protecting free speech in politics over stopping deceptive content (37%), regardless of political ideology. Sixty-three percent agree that the right to freedom of speech should be the government’s main priority when making laws that govern the use of AI.

    And 81% are concerned about official rules around election-related AI content being abused to suppress criticism of elected officials. A little more than half are concerned that strict laws making it a crime to publish an AI-generated/AI-altered political video, image, or audio recording would chill or limit criticism about political candidates.

    Voters are evenly split over whether AI is fundamentally different from other forms of speech and thus should be regulated differently. Photoshop and video editing, for example, have been used by political campaigns for many years, and 43% believe the use of AI by political campaigns should be treated the same as the use of older video, audio, and image editing technologies.

    “Handing more authority to government officials will be ripe for abuse and immediately step on critical First Amendment protections,” FIRE Legislative Counsel John Coleman said. “If anything, free expression is the proper antidote to concerns like misinformation, because truth dependably rises above.”

    The poll also found:

    • Two-thirds of those surveyed said it would be unacceptable for someone to use AI to create a realistic political ad that shows a candidate at an event they never actually attended by digitally adding the candidate’s likeness to another person.
    • It would be unacceptable for a political campaign to use any digital software, including AI, to reduce the visibility of wrinkles or blemishes on a candidate’s face in a political ad in order to improve the appearance of the candidate, 39% say, compared to 29% who say that it would be acceptable.
    • 42% agree that AI is a tool that facilitates an individual’s ability to practice their right to freedom of speech.

    The poll was conducted May 13-15, 2025, among a sample of registered voters in the US. A total of 2,005 interviews were conducted online across the US for a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. Frequency counts may not sum to 2,005 due to weighting and rounding.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT
    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected] 

    Source link

  • The one thing that unites French voters

    The one thing that unites French voters

    French President Emmanuel Macron’s grip on stability, progress and voter approval seems to be slipping.

    His party lost its absolute majority in the National Assembly and, following snap elections in the summer of 2024, its relative majority as well. Now, he faces a budget crisis, voter pushback and a geopolitical crisis involving Europe, the United States and Russia.

    Macron had once hoped to bridge France’s political divides and reinvigorate its economy but is now mired in political quicksand and many French voters feel helpless. That’s what I discovered while interviewing people on the street in Rennes, France, where I’m spending a year studying abroad and trying to make sense of French politics.

    One elderly woman I spoke to described what was happening as a catastrophe. “It’s embarrassing,” she said. “All we can do is wait for the next presidential election.”

    My interviews aligned with a November 2024 IPSOS survey, which found that 74% of respondents lack confidence in the presidency, while an overwhelming 86% distrust political parties. Trust in the National Assembly has plummeted as well, with 74% of respondents expressing no faith in the institution.

    What voters say

    People are frustrated. A middle-aged man told me: “Macron has lost his authority. France is unstable, gridlocked and hostile.”

    Back in September, Macron appointed Michel Barnier as prime minister in an attempt to stabilize his government but it backfired. By December, Barnier’s government had collapsed after losing a no-confidence vote, ousting him and his ministers and triggering yet another governmental reset.

    The vote came in response to Barnier’s use of Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, which allows the executive to pass a budget without parliamentary approval.

    It wasn’t until February 2025 that lawmakers finally agreed on a budget — one met with widespread discontent over spending cuts and reallocations. Now, many French citizens are asking: What’s next for the Republic?

    A law student I spoke with who goes to the University of Rennes expressed uncertainty about the country’s future. “I’m scared because we’re walking back on progress,” he said.

    A nation disunited

    Political divisions seem to be deepening, amplified by social media.

    A political science student at Rennes 2 University noted that people seem unable to talk to each other. “It’s harder than ever to have conversations with people who disagree with us,” the student said. “We don’t just see differing opinions, we see them as attacks on who we are.”

    Another student said that at university, now, you find yourself attacked or excluded if you don’t agree.

    This polarization was evident in the most recent European elections. The far-right Rassemblement National secured 31.5% of the vote — a 40-year record for any French party in a European election. Their campaign focused on hard-line immigration policies, crime reduction and tax cuts on fossil fuels.

    Despite shared dissatisfaction, French citizens are divided on the changes they seek. One university student emphasized the need for a more equitable education system.

    “We’ve made strides in accessibility, but students are locked into career paths too early,” she said. “My younger brother, for example, always dreamed of becoming a pilot. But because his undiagnosed ADHD hurt his test scores, he was placed in a vocational high school instead of a general one. Now he’s studying to be an air steward.”

    Some want a strong government.

    A retired woman expressed concern over global instability. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is terrifying,” she said. “And with Trump distancing the U.S. from the EU, I worry our military isn’t strong enough. France and the EU need to invest in defense.”

    To put what I found on the streets into perspective, I spoke with Alistair Lyon, a News Decoder correspondent and former reporter with the Reuters international news service who lives in France.

    He highlighted the long-term consequences of the gridlock in French politics. “In a time when France faces huge challenges like a budget deficit and a major geopolitical crisis involving the U.S., Europe and Russia, now is not a great time to have a political stalemate,” Lyon said.

    He expects the stalemate to continue until the 2027 presidential election, given Macron’s loss of both absolute and relative majorities in the National Assembly.

    He pointed to two major sources of division: growing disillusionment with politicians and resistance to reform. Many French voters feel politically homeless, fueling a cycle where reforms are met with fierce backlash, ultimately deterring further change.

    Disinformation breeds distrust.

    Compounding the problem is the erosion of independent journalism.

    “You have to be very careful reading the news,” Lyon said. “Journalists that remain anchored to traditional values of accuracy and impartiality are becoming few and far between.”

    In France, billionaire and right-wing proponent Vincent Bolloré has bought up news and media outlets, raising concerns about bias and misinformation. In a way, Lyon said, the media is fueling the fires of divisions in new ways because now the press is controlled and owned by people with vested political interests.

    France finds itself at a crossroads. Uncertainty, frustration and political polarization are creating more gloom than ever.

    Whether stability can be restored depends on Macron, the parliament and their willingness to compromise. If cooperation remains minimal, France may continue down a path of deepening division, one with consequences far beyond its borders.

    Three questions to consider:

    1. Why has French President Emmanuel Macron lost significant support from voters?

    2. What is one thing voters are in France want from their government?

    3. As a citizen of your country, what do you expect your government to do for you?

     

    Source link

  • Republican Voters Value Higher Education. Here Are Their Priorities.

    Republican Voters Value Higher Education. Here Are Their Priorities.

    Title: What do Republican Voters Want on Higher Education?

    Author: Ben Cecil

    Source: Third Way

    During the budgetary process that recently concluded, Congress considered substantial funding cuts to numerous areas, including higher education. Republican voters, however, may not view heavy cuts to higher education favorably. A recent survey of 500 Republican voters nationwide conducted by Third Way and the Republican polling firm GS Strategy Group found that Republicans value and support higher education, are in favor of less invasive reforms, and largely support policies directed at college affordability and accountability.

    The survey responses make clear that Republican voters haven’t abandoned the concept of higher education, with over 60 percent of respondents reporting that a four-year degree is valuable in today’s economy. Beyond traditional four-year programs, Republican voters demonstrated substantial support for trade schools and community colleges, with favorability for the institutions at 91 and 87 percent, respectively. While Republican perspectives regarding the value of education remain positive, nearly 90 percent of voters polled said that more accountability is required for higher education.

    Republican voters also rated many current higher education policies very favorably. Eighty-one percent of respondents said they support Pell Grants, while 79 percent supported Public Service Loan Forgiveness and income-driven repayment for student loans. The support for these programs aligns with one of respondents’ primary policy concerns; just under half of Republican voters said that affordability is the most significant problem that needs to be addressed within higher education.

    To address college affordability concerns, Republicans aren’t in favor of relying on private industry; of the 12 policy reforms Third Way tested, privatization of student loan programs was ranked number 11, with just over half of respondents viewing it as a viable option. With affordability as a chief concern, Republican voters recognize and support the role the federal government plays in offering financial support for students.

    The perspectives of Republican voters on higher education demonstrate clear policy aims and a hesitation to substantially change funding structures and government involvement. When asked if they prefer sweeping cuts to graduate lending or more accountability from institutions to improve their return on investment, only 20 percent of voters chose funding cuts. The message is clear: Republicans support increases to institutional accountability and college affordability but aren’t looking for broad cuts to higher education.

    For further information, click here to read the full article from the Third Way.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • What Republican voters want for higher ed

    What Republican voters want for higher ed

    Republican voters believe in the value of college degrees but harbor concerns about accountability and affordability, according to a new national survey conducted by Third Way, a center-left think tank, and GS Strategy Group, a Republican polling group.

    The survey of 500 Republican voters found that most respondents, 63 percent, view four-year degrees as valuable—including 60 percent of voters who have “very favorable” perceptions of President Trump. Trade schools and community colleges enjoy particularly robust support; 91 percent and 87 percent of respondents, respectively, view them favorably. By comparison, 69 percent hold favorable views of four-year colleges and universities, and 37 percent feel positively toward for-profit universities.

    At the same time, Republicans surveyed believe the most needed reforms in higher ed today are greater accountability and greater affordability.

    Most respondents, 87 percent, support increased accountability for higher education institutions. And many believe the government should play various roles to ensure that principle is upheld. Seventy-one percent agree that the federal government should require transparency from institutions and accredit them based on their value to students. The same share believe there should be federal guardrails to prevent “bad actors” from charging students for low-quality degrees. And nearly half agree taxpayer dollars should be withheld from colleges that don’t offer a sufficient return on students’ investment.

    Toward that end, 83 percent of Republicans support the financial value transparency rule, which requires colleges to report program-level information like the total cost of attendance and the amount of private education loans disbursed to students. To make college more affordable, 81 percent of Republicans are in favor of Pell Grants, federal financial aid for low-income students, and 79 percent support the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and income-driven repayment for student loans. Almost 70 percent favor borrower defense to repayment, allowing students who attended fraudulent institutions to have their student loans discharged.

    The report notes that many of these same policies “are being considered for cuts as budget reconciliation heats up.”

    “As Congress considers where to trim the budget this year, it’s important to remember that Republican voters aren’t looking for higher education cuts but rather a renewed emphasis on making it more affordable and holding institutions to the line for delivering a return on investment,” the report concludes.

    Source link