As I write this, we’re not done counting votes in several key states, including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. But if current trends hold, Joe Biden appears likely to become our 46th President.
What’s astounding is his coalition of voters. According to a review of exit polls, Biden performed better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 among white men, but performed worse among white women, Black women, Black men, Latina women, and Latino men. See the graphic below via CNN:
Back in August, Alex Spurrier and I warned that Joe Biden’s campaign platform overlooked effective education policies that Black and Hispanic voters tended to support. While the two things may or may not be related, it’s striking that Biden did worse among non-white voters, collectively, than any Democrat since JFK in 1960.
As someone who worked in the Obama Administration, it’s hard for me to look at President Trump’s record and understand how he could increase his support among Black and Hispanic voters. But somehow he did.
Readers of this blog will also have to grapple with the fact that education itself has been politicized over the last four years. In 2016, Trump won among voters without a college degree. In response, pollsters changed their methodologies to account for educational attainment. But polls this time seem to be off again, and Biden, like Clinton, maintained a stark advantage among voters with at least a bachelor’s degree, while Trump continued to win among voters with an associate’s degree or less. See the graphic below via Patrick Ruffini’s analysis of AP VoteCast data:
In other words, the Biden coalition looks quite a bit different than the ones assembled by recent Democrats. Per Andy Rotherham’s suggestion on Tuesday, who wins the election matters the most, but how they win is also important for understanding how they might govern after all the votes are counted.
That there’s a lot at stake in this election is obvious. And there is a lot at stake for schools even as they’ve been mostly an afterthought on the campaign trail. There are immediate questions about COVID-19 relief and, going forward, big questions for early education, higher education, assessment, accountability, and choice policies for K-12 schools.
At Bellwether we track the election and what it means for clients, and we pay attention to the context and conditions schools operate in. Our team is united by a shared mission of improving life and education outcomes for underserved students, but we differ about how best to do that — and, by extension, about politics. But like everyone, we are paying close attention this year.
Under previous administrations, K-12 policy segments of the State of the Union tended to focus on how the federal government would broadly shape the operation of public school systems in America. Last night, I thought that President Trump took a very different approach:
A good portion of the reaction to last night’s State of the Union is about a snubbed handshake and the tearing of a speech. While in recent years, the speech has certainly become a performative event full of partisan posturing, last night still signaled a subtle yet substantial shift in the presidential approach to K-12 education policy: President Trump indicated that his administration is more interested in incremental education measures than any administration in recent history.
Today is Constitution Day, a holiday commemorating the formation and signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 — 230 years ago. As “a nation of immigrants,” America’s national identity is largely tied to our founding documents, endowing the Constitution with a unique importance in American culture. However, many Americans know little about this document that we are supposed to support and defend.
Last week, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania released its Constitution Day Civics Survey, with dismal results. Only one in four respondents were able to name all three branches of government, a 12-point decline since 2011. Shockingly, 33 percent could not name a single branch.
The survey also asked respondents to identify which rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment. While nearly half (48 percent) were able to name “freedom of speech,” only 15 percent could name “freedom of religion.” Even fewer respondents identified the other rights (freedom of the press, right to petition, and right of assembly). Thirty-seven percent couldn’t name any.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of APPC, expressed her concern: “Protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution presupposes that we know what they are. The fact that many don’t is worrisome.”
Perhaps, in prior years, this warning may have seemed overblown. But in the Trump era, amid a seemingly constant slew of anti-democratic rhetoric, it feels right on the nose. For example, when asked whether those who are in the country illegally have any rights under the Constitution, 53 percent of APPC’s respondents disagreed. In this context of widespread ignorance and misinformation, the United States has seen an uptick in hate crimes associated with the rise of President Trump, beginning in 2015, persisting into 2016 and 2017, and culminating in the violence of the “Unite the Right” rally of white nationalists in Charlottesville last month.
Luckily, some states are taking action to bolster the civic knowledge of their students. For example, over the past three years, 17 states have adopted a “citizenship test” requirement for high school students. In eight of those states, students must receive a passing score on the test to receive a high school diploma. The questions are drawn from the the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) naturalization civics test, which immigrants must pass to become legal U.S. citizens.
This is a good first step, but it is far from sufficient. The test is not designed to be a high school civic literacy exam. It sets a low bar, with basic multiple-choice questions that ask test-takers to identify one branch of the government, or know how many amendments have been made to the Constitution. The simplicity is reflected in the initial test results, with very high passage rates and few students failing to pass the test after repeated attempts.
However, such a test is only one tool available to policymakers. They can design and administer higher quality civics assessments; implement robust standards and curricula for civics instruction; and provide real-world, project-based opportunities for students to learn about government and civic engagement. For example, New Hampshire passed legislation in 2016 requiring a civics test. But, rather than simply implementing a citizenship test for high school students, the legislation allows for the creation of locally developed assessments that can include a broader range of questions. Additionally, the state created a recognition for students who pass the required test by authorizing school districts to issue civic competency certificates.
New Hampshire Senator Lou D’Allesandro, a former civics teacher who sponsored some of the state’s legislation, summarized the issue well: “We always complain, ‘people don’t know anything about the system, they don’t get involved, they don’t vote.’ Well, they don’t vote because they don’t understand the importance of voting and how meaningful it is to participate in the process.”
If America wants to protect our constitutional rights and democratic ideals, we must ensure that our next generation of citizens are knowledgeable and engaged. That starts in the classroom.
Earlier this week, Ivanka Trump got boos and jeers in Berlin when she called President Trump a “champion for supporting families” and an “empowerer” of women. This has been her line since the campaign trail, often accompanied by a deeply flawed child care plan.
If Ivanka wants to start making those talking points a reality, and maybe even get cheers from the early childhood community, she should talk to her father about home visiting programs.
In these programs, pregnant women and families with young children at-risk of poverty or other factors receive regular at-home visits designed to encourage healthy parenting, support maternal health and child development, and connect families with other services. Home visiting is growing, but currently these programs reach only about 5 percent of the over 3 million American infants and toddlers living in poverty.
Supporting home visiting programs sounds like something everyone can agree on, right? So why are they missing from Trump’s budget proposal and Ivanka’s “women and children” speeches?
On one hand, it is hard to imagine President Trump supporting any program that was a cornerstone of Hillary Clinton’s campaign promises in early childhood, not to mention the fact that federal home visiting grants were originally created as part of the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, with a solid evidence base across multiple program models and geographies, home visiting has garnered praise and support from both sides of the aisle in recent House hearings and Senate briefings, and it’s the kind of cost-efficient preventative program that can save money in the long term.
While home visiting programs like these have been around for decades, when the federal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting grant program (MIECHV) was established in 2010, it helped spread home visiting across the country. There are 18 home visiting models that meet federal evidence standards, and most of these allow for lots of variation, so home visiting programs can take many forms on the ground. Here are two examples:
Last summer, my Bellwether colleague Marnie Kaplan described the HIPPY program after Hillary Clinton touted it. HIPPY focuses on preschool-aged children, and offers families training and materials to support early literacy and language development in weekly home visits.
Another highly-rated program is Healthy Families America (HFA), which primarily serves families with infants (birth to 12 months), and focuses on preventing child abuse and neglect by encouraging nurturing parent-child relationships. Home visitors screen for child development and family risk factors, teach families about child development, promote health and nutrition, and help parents develop positive knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards parenting.
Home visiting programs are not a replacement for more intensive early care and education programs, like Head Start, but they can provide important supports for families in a cost-efficient and flexible way. Part of the beauty of home visiting programs is that they are locally-run and administered, and are flexible to a variety of community contexts — for example, training home visitors within rural communities can create jobs, ensure community-responsive services, and reach more people than a single brick-and-mortar social services site.
While the Trump administration has been quiet on these programs so far,hopefully the combination of strong evidence, local control, and cost-efficiency could protect programs from looming budget cuts, or even see them grow in the future. If Trump commits support and resources for programs that work for children and families, that could be something to applaud.