Modern political theory is often concerned with the voting patterns people have within democracies. The ability to predict how, when, and why people will vote the way they do is a powerful tool in the policy making process. Accordingly, modern political scientists are constantly developing models to determine the likelihood that someone will vote a particular way. One widely known, yet seemingly contradictory situation is the effect of both wealth and education level on party affiliation. Wealth (as defined by income) tends to positively correlate to a stronger association with the Republican party, whereas education levels tend to positively correlate to a stronger association with the Democratic party. Conversely, wealth and education level tend to positively correlate with one another (with the two previous facts known, this should be a negative correlation).
It is also general knowledge that wealth tends to positively correlate with better educational outcomes for students. This is due to the fact that the majority of Americans live in areas where there is an educational gap across relatively small geographic areas. Very wealthy families will often send their kids to private schools where the educational outcomes are clearly defined and often supersede those of surrounding public schools. Public school systems are also generally funded through property taxes, so more expensive areas with higher average income levels tend to have better schools. To apply this to a modern perspective, this paper will examine the self-reported results of the 2008 ANES as well as information from the 1972-2008 GSS Cumulative Dataset in order to determine if party affiliation and income are predictors of educational policy preferences. Further, this information will be applied to the current political state where talks of alternative educational institutions are already present. Currently, charter schools and the voucher system are being discussed as a viable option for our country by the Department of Education.
I. Problem Definition
Modern public schools were established with the ideal in mind that they would provide quality education with access to all students without regard to factors uncontrollable to the student such as income, race, familial status, etc. (Foster, 2001). For a long period of time, public schools were the only options for all but the smallest number of families. However, in recent times as the upper class, middle class, and lower class are becoming more segregated, people now have more options for childhood education than ever before. This has meant increasing numbers of challenges for public schools. Decreased funding and standardized measurements for students and teachers alike are just a few of the changes in recent years. The rankings of American education on an international scale have been steadily decreasing. More people are sending their kids to or advocating for alternative options. These mainly take the forms of 1) private schools or 2) charter schools.
Because private schools are “owned and governed by entities that are independent of any government—typically, religious bodies or independent boards of trustees”, they are not bound to report the same data that public schools are and are not nearly as accountable to the government (Naomi and Peter, 2002). Those who attend these schools accordingly do not receive a subsidy for their education. The families must often pay some amount of tuition in order for their child to attend. This money pays teachers and provides resources that the government would normally provide. Some may wonder – why pay for this type of education when a free, public one already exists? Private schools are often thought to have a number of advantages of public schools in terms of education outcomes. Mainly, a private school is likely to have smaller class sizes than larger public schools which allows for individualized learning opportunities Further, these “schools may be established specifically to implement a particular instructional approach, such as Montessori, or a specific curricular focus” (Naomi and Peter, 2001). While the number of students attending has increases, private schooling is not new.
Charter schools on the other hand have been around since only the early 1990s, and they have recently been gaining popularity among the Republican party. Turning on the news in 2017 for more than a few minutes would probably lead one to hear about charter schools in at least a cursory manner. Simply, these are schools that are publicly funded but students must opt into them. So, anyone in the school system can attend without regard to their physical address. This is in contrast to most school systems which require children to attend the local area school as determined by the neighborhood in which they live. The positive idea behind charter schools is that they provide an opportunity for students, who would otherwise be forced to attend an underachieving public school, to attend a higher achieving educational institution. This gives rise to the notion of “school choice.” Critics of this idea point at that this would result in an even larger problem of underfunded public schools. One must wonder how these charter schools would be funded with regard to already tight budgets across the country. Advocates for school choice would say that reducing the number of students in schools will ultimately lower overhead costs (The Right Choice? Charter Schools and Voucher Systems, 2000).
Vouchers for school choice is an idea that develops from the manner in which public schools are funded. People are taxed on their income, property, and other things and part of this revenue goes to fund school systems in the area. Wealthy people, logically, pay a greater amount of money in taxes (both in percentage and real dollars) than poorer people. A growing concern among the upper classes is that when their kids attend a private school, they are not making use of the taxes they have paid into the school system. A “voucher” would allow wealthy people to recoup this cost. In the voucher system, wealthy people would be paid back a portion of their taxes that would normally be allocated for public schools if they have children that do not attend the private school (The Right Choice? Charter Schools and Voucher Systems, 2000). While on the surface, this sounds like a fair system, it would greatly reduce the funding of some public schools. The question becomes: how does income level affect educational outcomes with regard to the proclivity to support programs such as charter schools and voucher in the voting booths?
II. Analysis
Income inequality is a hot topic that is fresh in most people’s minds. Since the early 1990s there has been discussion as to what the future of America is with regards to the growing gap between the lower, middle, and upper classes (Ryscavage,1999). Logically, the political ideals that persons in these groups possess is going to vary widely. Lower and middle class people are typically more in favor of government funded welfare programs. Upper class people are going to generally be more in favor of smaller government agencies that operate on a smaller budget. This is due in large part to the role that taxes play within our society. Welfare programs are funded by taxes that support many Americans who are unable to work. These taxes are most strenuous on the middle classes, but they do also affect the upper class. Therefore, upper and middle class persons tend to prefer tax policies that are more lenient on individuals, and lower class persons tend to prefer taxes that are heavier on those that make more money. This manifests itself in Republican and Democratic party affiliations, respectively.
In order to analyze this behavior, income is a measurement often taken on surveys, and it can be correlated to whom people vote for in a contentious election (i.e. the 2008 Presidential race). A major portion of taxes is appropriated to education goals that the Department of Education regulates. A problem arises in the fact that wealthier people may favor policies that are more tax lenient. One way to reduce taxes is to reduce the number of things those taxes are applied to. Education funding is one area that is easy to cut, because, as discussed previously, wealthy people tend to send their kids to schools that are less prone to bear the effects of Federal funding cuts. This is a modern political problem that can be explained by not only the income people bring in, but also by the type and level of education they have given their children. In light of recent political developments, alternative methods of education have been discussed in an attempt to “fix” America’s education system.
In order to evaluate income level and its effect on policy opinions, the most recent viable Presidential Election survey data will be used – the 2008 American National Election Study. The 2016 ANES data did not contain a suitable variable for income measurement, and the 2012 election was much less polarized than the 2008. So, the 2008 data will be the most accurate. The variable “v083249” measured income level of the respondents of the survey. For simplicity, this variable was recoded so that it presented only three income levels – low, mid, and high. The “low” category was designated as being only for those making $29,999 per year or less. The “mid” category included those making between $30,000 and $149,999 per year. Finally, the “high” category included those making $150,000 per year or more. For the election variable, “v085195” was used which asked those who did vote for president who they voted for.
Among those in the low category, Barack Obama was the modal response. With 57.2 of those saying that voted for him, having low income makes one more likely to vote for a democratic candidate. The mid category sees 53.7 voting for McCain, a very small margin of preference. This is likely due to the scope of the mid category, the group is, therefore, pretty evenly split. The most interesting statistic comes from those in the high category – .8 would vote for Obama, whereas 3.2 would vote for McCain. While these numbers seem small, this means that wealthier people are four times more likely to vote for the Republican candidate. This is important because wealthier people tend to have a large effect on the policymaking process. If we know that wealthier people tend to support more Republican policies, we can determine what type of educational policies they will support. The concern is that they will be less likely to support strengthening of public schools, and will instead be more in favor of alternative options like charters and vouchers. The exact results of this analysis can be seen by referring to Table I in the appendix.
In order to examine the effect party affiliation has on school choice. I decided to run a cross tabulation using the GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset. This dataset is not in relation to any particular political election, but it does examine standardized factors among various groups. For this analysis, I used “PARTYID” as my independent variable. For simplicity, I recoded it to include only three categories. Initially, the dataset groups people into “Strong Democrat, Weak Democrat, Independent but leans Democrat, etc.” These groups were reduced to “Democrat”, “Independent”, “Republican”, and “Other.” The dependent variable used was PUBSCH which asked respondents if their children attended public school for elementary through high school. The only options for answering this question were “Yes” and “No.” The theory behind this analysis is to determine whether or not Republicans or Democrats are more likely to make use of alternative means of education. It is important to note that the question is worded so that anyone who spent anytime outside of a public school would yield a “No” answer. Because of this, one must consider when viewing this data that it will not represent where a student spent the majority of their educational career. However, significant differences in people of different parties responses will still yield relevant results.
Democrats responded split almost equally between the questions (within 4 points). Independents responded even more closely together with a difference of only 3 points. Republicans, conversely, responded with the highest level of differences. Although the difference was only 7 points, this is still almost double the points of Democrats and more than double the rate of Independents. Additionally, Republicans were the only group where one is more likely to respond “No” than “Yes.” While with Democrats and Independents one is slightly more likely to send their children to public schools for their entire public school career, a Republican is slightly more likely to not send their children to public schools for at least a portion of their educational career. The exact results of this analysis can be seen by referring to Table II in the appendix.
The associations made with this data are fairly clear – wealthier people are more likely to vote Republican. This can be attributed to many factors for which there is not time for discussion in this paper. However, the scope of this paper rests in the fact that wealthier people are therefore more likely to send their children to schools other than those in the public school system (i.e. private and charter schools). The question then becomes, what effects do private and charter schools have on education in America as a whole? While there are many people who are in favor and against the notion of charter and private schools, research can project the likely outcomes of their increased usage.
In the mid 2000s there were around 1 million students enrolled in charter schools across the country. The growth in attendance is representative of a modern political movement with a goal of enhancing education around the country. Charter schools have goals of not only helping students but also providing new opportunities for teachers. By opening newer, more advanced schools, teachers have the ability to specialize more than they had in the past and potentially reach new goals. Parents and members of the community also have the opportunity to take a more active role in the education process as charter schools are focused on parental involvement. Public schools are markedly less conducive to parental involvement (e.g. buses instead of parents taking kids to schools). All of these things would lead to increased accountability school system wide – or so the Department of Education would hope (Buckley, 2009). The popularity of charter schools has increased mainly due to the fact that people genuinely want to provide a better education for their children – and they do not see this opportunity as existing in the current public school system (The Right Choice? Charter Schools and Voucher Systems, 2000).
The main issue behind advocacy for charter schools rests in the “negative externality” that is the product of the movement of students out of their assigned public school. Higher achieving students who are candidates for charter schools are no longer present in the public school where they elevate the level of learning of those around them. Also, because parents who utilize charter schools are by necessity involved parents, they are no longer putting their resources towards the public school. Those resources are now directed at the new charter school, and students in the public school do not have as many parents involved in their learning environment. While many would argue that parents should be able to make decisions that would best benefit their child’s education, there is a significant negative cost to promoting “school choice.” Students, who through no fault of their own, are born into a family that cares little about education will have no other option but to attend the increasingly faulty public school system. This issue would have the potential to perpetuate itself into a rigid class divide defined by one’s access to education. As demonstrated, the voting behavior people have would maintain this system and, therefore, be a widespread problem (Buckley, 2009).
Interestingly, there has been a lot of critique around the concept of privatization. The idea behind providing vouchers is that they will ultimately drive the cost of public school down. The logic model is developed as follows (Sclar, 2000):
1. Public schools are overcrowded and do not have the funds to provide all students with adequate educational opportunities
2. If students no longer attend public school, overcrowding problems will be reduced
3. Parents need to be incentivized to move their children out of public schools and into public schools
4. Vouchers can be offered in order to entice parents to move their children to private schools who would otherwise be unable to do so
5. The number of students who leave will be proportionately feasible so that funding is adequate for the students who remain
The problem with this line of reasoning come from the 5th step of the logic model. This step is heavily dependent on a very precise number of students leaving for a very precise reason. In truth, there are many externalities that have not been fully evaluated. It is haphazard reasoning to assume that even with a voucher a statistically significant number of people would be able to afford private school. In addition to the financial burden, there are also a good number of other contributing factors as to why a parent may be unable to send their children to private schools. Those who are non-religious may not want to send their child to the available private schools because they are typically associated with a religion. Logistically, parents may be unable or unwilling to transport their children to the school system. While the voucher system could work if everything goes as planned, there are a number of problems that would spell disaster for vouchers (Sclar, 2000).
III. Conclusion
It can be stated affirmatively that charter schools and voucher systems are an unashamedly Republican idea. They are inherently designed to benefit, at the worst, the wealthiest and, at the best, the middle class. However, the lower class in America as defined by income is certainly disadvantaged. In 2017, Betsy DeVos, a longtime proponent of charter schools, was confirmed as Secretary of Education within the Trump Administration. She has been outspoken with radical ideas for reform of America’s education system. While some of the ideas may be viable under strict conditions on paper, there are a vast number of variables that would yield implementation of these ideas disastrous. Because Republicans are more likely to vote for candidates that support such ideas, there is a real possibility that some become real in the coming years. As our policymakers look to other strategies to improving education, they must consider the fact that Republican voters are more likely to vote in favor of policies that benefit themselves financially. So, it may be useful to promote ideas that are shown to be fiscally beneficial to middle and upper class people. Although it may be difficult to demonstrate this in the short term, educational reform at the public school level can be fiscally beneficial in the long run in various ways (e.g. less people on government assistance like welfare). Conclusively, voting behavior is a crucial study in developing these policies.