No on Choice, Yes on Trump?

Unpacking some election results

In Kentucky and Nebraska last week, roughly the same number of voters went to Donald Trump as went against efforts to expand school choice.

But school choice is high on Trump’s education agenda. So why would voters pick Trump if they don’t want choice?

First, there’s a difference between voting for president and voting for any issue or person that immediately impacts your life. There’s also a difference between voting for a person, especially when you have to pick someone for the job, and voting on an issue, one side of which maintains the status quo. Lots of folks are happy for things to stay the same, even when they aren’t entirely happy. Change is daunting.

Second, a lot of money was spent convincing people to vote for or against Kentucky’s Amendment 2. Each side spent about $8 million to convince voters, with the two largest single donors being billionaire Jeff Yass (spent about $4M to support the amendment) and the National Education Association (spent about $7M to oppose). Which is all to say that without being on the ground in Kentucky, and without awareness of which communities were targeted with what messages, we can’t fairly evaluate the context in which any Kentucky voter made their decision.  

Third, it’s rational and expected that people will vote in their own self-interest. And most parents in Kentucky are reasonably satisfied with their child’s school. In a recent poll, 64% of Kentucky parents said that if they had a choice, they would send their child to the school they already attend. What motivation would someone have who is already happy with their child’s school to vote for any ballot measure that might change the thing they like? About 66% of Kentuckians voted against the school choice measure, though not all of them are current parents. Still, the numbers tracking so closely with parent polling seem to help explain what happened.

Another way to think about the Kentucky school choice ballot measure is that it’s important to have opportunities for direct voting on issues, and opportunities for legislative bodies to weigh in. Because those legislative bodies might look at that same parent poll, and point out that only 38% of low-income parents are very satisfied with their child’s school.  Low-income parents in Kentucky are also much less likely to believe their child will be prepared for college or the workforce—just 30% of low-income Kentucky parents say their child will be prepared for college compared to 43% of middle- and high-income parents.

Now, Kentucky happens to have a state constitution that says all education funding can only go to traditional public schools. Not only does this make it impossible for any private school choice program to run, but it also stymies the growth of public charter schools, precisely the public option that in so many places provides a higher-quality choice for low-income families. Had the amendment passed, it would have allowed the state legislature to consider a private school choice bill but charter school expansion would also have been on the table.

That makes the real winner from state ballot measures on choice the teacher’s union. The NEA made a good investment in Kentucky, just as they did in Massachusetts where unions contributed a significant amount of the more than $10 million that was spent convincing Massachusetts voters to do away with the high school exit exam. The MCAS, which required students to pass a state test in reading, math, and science in order to receive a diploma, served a few important purposes. It was a guidepost for high school academics, setting a clear floor that all schools should work towards. If a lot of students in a particular school weren’t passing the exams, that created an opportunity to hold the school accountable, or at least for parents to take that information into account when thinking about where their child will attend high school. Most of the messaging on the Massachusetts ballot measure was that these tests were unfair to low-income students. Besides the fact that only a small number of students were ever denied a diploma for failing these tests (multiple retake options plus a committee review called the Independent Graduation Committee meant there were ample workarounds), there’s something else that’s even more unfair: giving a high school diploma to students who haven’t acquired the skills and knowledge to succeed beyond high school. Most of the students who failed the MCAS also failed to meet local high school graduation requirements. So what exactly does getting rid of the test achieve, other than lessening transparency and reducing the likelihood of any accountability?

If I’m the teacher unions right now, I’m feeling really good about my ability to influence state-level votes and convince voters that protecting public schools means limiting options and undermining rigor. We should be worried about what they’ll go after next.

There’s a lot of unknowns right now about the Trump administration and education. And lots of smart folks are unpacking who voted for Trump and what that might mean for education reform, or how we might think about Trump’s 10-point education plan. But during a Trump administration, where frankly I expect very little federal K-12 action, I’m looking to see what the unions are going to do. I think they want to nip any nascent education reform efforts from moderates or the left in the bud by rallying everyone around an anti-Trump agenda. But just because the left might perceive a common enemy doesn’t mean that anyone, including the unions, gets a pass on the unending work of improving schools. Private school choice isn’t going anywhere (Republican state legislators in Tennessee introduced a bill last week, Texas will see one shortly, and a few other states will either introduce a new bill or try to expand an existing program) and neither is the work to make public schools better for every child in America. Let’s keep our eye on the prize, and don’t let the unions distract anyone from what really matters.