Senate bill 1 poll

Stand For Children

Indiana Voter Survey

Prepared By:

DHM Research

Prepared For:

Stand for Children

2

DHM Research | Stand for Children Indiana Statewide Voter Survey, March 2011

INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY

Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. (DHM Research) conducted a telephone survey of voters in the state of

Indiana on behalf of Stand for Children to assess voter support for Indiana Senate Bill 1, as well as other

education reform initiatives in the state.

Research Methodology: Between March 10 and March 14, 2011, DHM Research conducted a telephone

survey among 600 voters in Indiana. This is a sufficient sample size to assess voter opinions generally

and to review findings by multiple subgroups including age, gender, political party, and area of state.

The interviews averaged 18 minutes to administer.

In gathering responses, DHM employed quality control measures, including questionnaire pre-testing,

callbacks, and validations. In addition, quotas were established for age, gender, and area of state based

on the total population of voters in Indiana to ensure a representative sample.

Statement of Limitations: Any sampling of opinions or attitudes is subject to a margin of error, which

represents the difference between a sample of a given population and the total population (here, voters

in Indiana). For a sample size of 600, if respondents answered a particular question in the proportion of

90% one way and 10% the other, the margin of error would be +/-2.4%, at the 95% confidence level. If

they answered 50% each way, the margin of error would be +/- 4.0%.1

These plus-minus error margins represent differences between the sample and total population at a

confidence interval, or probability, calculated to be 95%. This means that there is a 95% probability that

the sample taken for this study would fall within the stated margins of error if compared with the results

achieved from surveying the entire population.

DHM Research: Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. has been providing opinion research and consultation

throughout the United States for over three decades. The firm is non-partisan and independent and

specializes in research projects to support public policy making. www.dhmresearch.com SUMMARY & OBSERVATIONS

Voters are highly supportive of Senate Bill 1, and support increases after hearing reasons to support

and oppose components of the bill.

• Sixty-seven percent (67%) support changing teacher compensation and placement criteria so that

only one-third is based on teacher seniority and the remaining is based on student academic

growth and their level.

• Overall support increased nine points to 76% at the end of the survey after being read reasons to

support and oppose components of the bill. Support also increased by each subgroup between the

first and final test, including teacher households (from 47% to 58%). This signifies that support is

high, and that communications related to the bill resonate with voters.

1 The reason for the difference lies in the fact that when response categories are relatively even in size, each is numerically

smaller, and thus slightly less able, on a statistical basis, to approximate the larger population.

3


Voters are highly supportive of specific components of Senate Bill 1.

• Changes to evaluation requirements and criteria: Eight in 10 support changing the scale of teacher

evaluations from “effective or ineffective” to “very effective, effective, needs improvement, and

ineffective.” Similar numbers also support requiring annual evaluations for teachers, and changing

teacher evaluations to include student academic growth as a factor, not just seniority.

• Changes to acquiring permanent status: Eight in 10 (85%) support changing the rules of rewarding

permanent status so that it is based in part on teacher effectiveness instead of just time in the

classroom. Three-quarters support ensuring that only teachers who are effective at improving

student academic growth are able to receive and keep their permanent status.

• Flexibility in schools in hiring and dismissal practices: Nine in 10 support providing teachers and

principals more flexibility to improve student achievement. Just under nine in 10 support schools

not being forced to keep low-performing teachers and principals, giving schools the ability to hire

teachers base on demonstrated teacher effectiveness instead of seniority or permanent status, and

making sure that if budget cuts happen, teacher layoffs are based on teacher performance,

including their ability to increase student academic growth, instead of just seniority.

• Changes to teacher compensation criteria: Just fewer than nine in 10 support providing higher pay

to educators who work in low-performing or high poverty schools if they are able to increase

student academic performance. Eight in 10 support providing higher pay to educators who teach in

high priority subject areas like math and science that currently don’t have enough effective

teachers, and similar numbers support changing teacher compensation decisions so that

experience counts for one-third of performance criteria, and other criteria include student

academic growth and teacher leadership.

• Eight in 10 agree that basing teacher layoffs on effectiveness means that the best teachers will

stay in the classroom, regardless of seniority or salary, with 55% who strongly agree.

• Eight in 10 agree that it doesn’t make sense to award permanent job status to teachers unless

they have a proven track record of effectively increasing student academic growth, and that

teacher permanent status rules should be changed so that it is only granted after three years of

teaching if the teacher has a proven track record of effectiveness in the classroom and increasing

student academic growth.

KEY FINDINGS

Overall Support for Senate Bill 1

Voters were asked at the beginning (Q5) and end (Q39) of the survey if they would support or oppose

changing teacher compensation and placement criteria so that only one-third is based on teacher seniority

and the remaining is based on a teacher’s ability to increase student academic growth and their level of

leadership in the district.

In the first test, before hearing reasons to support and oppose this change, 67% of voters either “strongly”

(42%) or “somewhat” (26%) supported this. Overall support increased nine points to 76% at the end of the

survey (strong: 48%; somewhat: 28%). Support also increased within all demographic groups.

4


Changing Teacher Compensation and Placement Criteria to Include Seniority, Increasing Academic Growth, and

Leadership: First Test and Re-Test

Source: DHM Research; March 2011

Support in educator households increased from 47% in the first test to 58% in the re-test. In addition, while

support is higher with infrequent voters compared to frequent voters in the initial test (72% vs. 62%),

support increased among both groups at the end of the survey (82% vs. 69%).

Support of Senate Bill 1 Components

Voters were told that the Indiana state legislature will be considering Senate Bill 1 in the 2011 legislative

session, and that this bill focuses on reforms to how teachers are evaluated, compensated, and their

placement (Q19).

Voters were then read a list of components of Senate Bill 1 and were asked their level of support for each

component (Q20-Q26). Strong majorities – between 71% and 88% – of voters supported each component,

however there are differences in the level of “strong” support.

42%

26%

11% 15%7%

48%

28%

8% 11%5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly support Somewhat

support

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly oppose Don't know

First Test Re-test

5


Support of Senate Bill 1 Components


Three proposals received a majority “strong” support. At the top, 88% of voters support providing higher

pay to educators who work in low-performing or high poverty schools if they are able to increase student

academic performance, with 52% of voters who said they “strongly” support this. Five in 10 or more in each

demographic group “strongly” support this.

Next, 83% support changing teacher evaluations to include student academic growth as a factor, not just

seniority, with 52% of voters in “strong” support. “Strong” support is highest among voters ages 18 to 34

(54%) and 35 to 54 (55%), men (56%), Republicans (58%), Independents (55%), and non-teacher households

(57%).

Finally, 88% support individual schools having more flexibility in hiring and dismissal practices, with 50%

supporting this “strongly.”

37%

38%

42%

43%

50%

52%

52%

34%

37%

40%

37%

38%

31%

35%

13%

11%

9%

11%

7%

8%

6%

13%

11%

6%

7%

3%

7%

5%

3%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base teacher placement and dismissal on their ability to

increase student academic performance

Money previously allocated to teacher seniority and

degrees earned would be redirected to reward teachers

for students' success in the classroom, teacher leadership

assignments, and incentives to teach in high priority

subject areas

Change teacher compensation decisions so that

experience counts for 1/3 of performance criteria, and

other criteria include student academic growth and

teacher leadership

Provide higher pay to educators who work in high priority

subject areas like math and science that currently don't

have enough effective teachers

Individual schools would have more flexibility in hiring

and dismissal

Change teacher evaluations to include student academic

growth as a factor, not just seniority

Provide higher pay to educators who work in low

performing or high poverty schools if they are able to

increase student academic performance

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know

6


More than three-quarters of frequent voters supported each of these three proposals, and close to nine in

10 infrequent voters said they support them.

The remaining components received “strong” support from approximately four in 10 voters. Findings are

also similar by voter propensity groups.

Just under eight in 10 (79%) support providing higher pay to educators who teach in high priority subject

areas like math and science that currently don’t have enough effective teachers, with 43% who are in

“strong” support.

Support is also strong for changing teacher compensation decisions so that experience counts for one-third

of performance criteria, and other criteria include student academic growth and teacher leadership (82%

support, 42% “strongly” so). Eight in 10 in each demographic group support this proposal with the exception

of educator households (67%).

Three-quarters (74%) support money previously allocated toward teacher seniority and degrees earned

being redirected to reward teachers for their students’ success in the classroom, teacher leadership

assignments, and incentives to teach in high priority areas, with support divided between “strong” (38%)

and “somewhat” (37%).

Finally, 71% either “strongly” (37%) or “somewhat” (34%) support basing teacher placement and dismissal

on their ability to increase student academic performance. This yielded slightly more differences in opinion

between demographic subgroups, with support higher among voters 18 to 34 and 35 to 54 in age than their

counterparts (83% and 73% vs. 61%), higher among men than women (76% vs. 66%), and higher among

Republicans and Independents than Democrats (78% and 72% vs. 62%).

It should also be noted that 50% of educator households said they support this.

7


Teacher Hiring and Dismissal

Voters were also asked which of the following statements comes closer to their point of view (Q38):

Basing Teacher Layoffs on Seniority or Effectiveness


More than eight in 10 (83%) said that when faced with teacher layoffs, schools should make their decisions

about which teachers to keep based on their effectiveness in the classroom and ability to increase student

growth (Q42). Approximately eight in 10 or more in each demographic group said this statement comes

closest to their point of view, with the exception of educator households (68%).

Indiana voters are in agreement with arguments regarding changing hiring and dismissal practices identified

in Senate Bill 1, with arguments against resonating significantly less (Q27-Q32).

Reasons to Support Hiring and Dismissal Components of Senate Bill 1


5%

12%

83%

Don’t know

When faced with teacher layoffs, schools should

make their decisions about which teachers to let

go based on their seniority in the district

When faced with teacher layoffs, schools should

make their decisions about which teachers to

keep based on their effectiveness in the

classroom and ability to increase student growth

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

29%

55%

76%

23%

27%

16%

18%

9%

28%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Basing teacher lay-offs on seniority alone means

that teachers who are more effective may be let

go because they haven't been teaching as long as

other, less effective teachers

Basing teacher lay-offs on effectiveness means

that the best teachers will stay in the classroom,

regardless of their seniority or salary

Principals should be able to hire the teachers that

wil best meet the needs of their school's students,

and they should never be forced to hire a teacher

they don’t think is a good fit for their school

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know

8


Almost all voters (92%) agree that principals should be able to hire the teachers that will best meet the

needs of their school’s students, and they should never be forced to hire a teacher they don’t think is a

good fit for their school, with a full three-quarters (76%) who “strongly” agree with this.

It is worth noting that 91% of educator households agree with this, and 76% “strongly” agree.

Next, eight in 10 (82%) agree that basing teacher layoffs on effectiveness means that the best teachers will

stay in the classroom, regardless of seniority or salary. Slightly more than one-half (55%) “strongly” support

this, and support is high among all demographic groups, including 71% of educator households.

A slight majority (52%) agree that basing layoffs on seniority alone means that teachers who are more

effective may be let go because they haven’t been teacher as long as other, less effective teachers, with

voters split between “strong” (29%) and “somewhat” (23%) agreement. Findings are similar by demographic

group.

Teacher Permanent Status

Voters were told that Indiana public school teachers are awarded permanent status, which provides them

with a high level of job security after three years of teaching, and that this status is awarded regardless of

how effective they are at increasing student academic growth (Q33).

When asked if they would support or oppose changing the rules of rewarding permanent status so that it is

based in part on teacher effectiveness instead of just time in the classroom, 85% of Hoosiers gave their

support, with 61% who said they “strongly” support this.

Rewarding Permanent Status In Part on Effectiveness


It should also be noted that 72% of educator households are in support of changing the rules of rewarding

permanent status in part on effectiveness.

Voters were read a list of reasons to support changing teacher permanent status criteria to include

teacher effectiveness and leadership and asked their level of agreement with each (Q34-Q37).

61%

24%

6% 6% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

Don't know

9


Permenant Status Should be Based on the Length of Time Spent in the Classroom


Only 30% of voters agreed that the length of time a teacher spends in the classroom is critical to their

development and it makes sense to base awarding teaching permanent status solely on the length of time

they have been teaching, with 20% who agree only “somewhat.” Just over one-third (37%) of educator

households agree with this.

Voters were much more likely to agree with reasons to include performance and effectiveness in teacher

permanent status criteria.

Reasons to Support Changing Teacher Permanent Status Criteria


Agreement is also much higher for reasons to base teacher permanent status in part on effectiveness.

Eighty-three percent (83%) agree that it is much more difficult to dismiss a teacher with permanent status

39%

43%

50%

25%

38%

32%

12%

8%

8%

20%

8%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Permanent status based solely on time served in the

classroom means that we have teachers in the

system who are not effective but who we cannot

replace or dismiss

Teacher permanent status rules should be changed

so that it is only granted after 3 years of teaching if

the teacher has a proven track record of

effectiveness in the classroom and increasing

student academic growth

It is much more difficult to dismiss a teacher with

permanent status than other teachers. Because of

this, it doesn't make sense to award this job status

to teachers unless they have a proven track record

of effectively increasing student academic growth

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know

Strongly

agree

10%

Somewhat

agree

20%

Somewhat

disagree

30%

Strongly

disagree

37%

Don't

know

3%

10


than other teachers and that because of this, it doesn’t make sense to award this job status to teachers

unless they have a proven track record of effectively increasing student academic growth. Five in 10 (50%)

agree “strongly.” Voters ages 18 to 34 (90%) and 35 to 54 (86%) have higher agreement levels than voters 55

and older (75%), as do Republicans (87%) and Independents (85%) compared to Democrats (77%).

It should be noted that 74% of educator households agree with this.

Eight in 10 (80%) of voters also agree that teacher permanent status rules should be changed so that it is

only granted after three years of teaching if the teacher has a proven track record of effectiveness in the

classroom and increasing student academic growth. Forty-three percent (43%) “strongly” agree with this.

Findings are similar between subgroups with the exception of age, as 18 to 34 (91%) have higher agreement

levels with this than voters 35 to 54 (81%) and 55 and older (75%).

Sixty-four percent (64%) also agree that permanent status based solely on time served in the classroom

means that we have teachers in the system who are not effective but who we cannot replace or dismiss,

with 39% who agree “strongly.” Democrats (56%) and voters ages 55 and older (59%) are the only two

groups whose agreement drops below 60%.

11


Appendix A

Indiana Voter Statewide Survey – Senate Bill 1

March 2011; N=600; all registered voters

15 minutes +/-4.0 margin of error

DHM Research

Hi, my name is _____________ calling on behalf of DHM Research, a public opinion research firm. I’m

calling about topics related to public education in the state of Indiana. May I please speak to (Name on

list; if unavailable schedule callback)

General Mood

1. All in all, are things in the state of Indiana headed in the right direction or are things pretty much

off on the wrong track?

Response Category N=600

Right direction 39%

Wrong track 49%

Don’t know 13%

2. What about public K-12 education in the state. Are things headed in the right direction or are

things pretty much off on the wrong track?


Right direction 32%

Wrong track 56%

Don’t know 12%

3. In general, is your impression of public school teachers in the state very favorable, somewhat

favorable, not too favorable, or not at all favorable?


Very favorable 36%

Somewhat favorable 50%

Not too favorable 8%

Not at all favorable 2%

Don’t know 4%

12


Teacher Evaluations – Baseline Attitudes

4. What do you consider to be the one most important factor to student success in Indiana’s

public schools? (Open; accept 1 response)


Parental involvement/dedication towards their child’s education 24%

Having more quality/caring/dedicated/educated teachers 20%

Having better class size/student to teacher ratio 7%

Focusing on individual students needs/more personalized education 5%

Adequate funding for educational resources 5%

Having a good foundation/concentration on fundamentals/good curriculum 4%

More consequences/higher discipline on students 3%

Having a broad spectrum of subjects taught/not teaching to mandated tests 2%

Changing educational methods/standards 2%

Work ethic/more effort/students need to study more 2%

Less administration and government focus/more focus on teachers and

what they are supposed to be doing 2%

Cooperation between teachers and parents 2%

Teachers need resources to teach properly/updated resources 2%

All other responses 1% or less

Nothing/none 2%

Don’t know 5%

5. Would you support or oppose changing teacher compensation and placement criteria so

that only one-third is based on teacher seniority and the remaining is based on teachers’

ability to increase student academic growth and their level of leadership in the district?

(Wait and ask) Is that strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)?


Strongly support 42%

Somewhat support 26%

Somewhat oppose 11%

Strongly oppose 15%

Don’t know 7%

13


6. How often do you think the performance of Indiana public school teachers should be

evaluated in a 10-year period? (Record number)


1 - 3 20%

4 - 9 24%

10 - 11 48%

12 or more 4%

Don’t know 5%

7. It is up to the individual school districts in the state to determine how often teachers are

evaluated. In general, are you not at all concerned, not too concerned, somewhat

concerned, or very concerned that Indiana does not have set requirements for teacher

evaluations?


Not at all concerned 6%

Not too concerned 10%

Somewhat concerned 41%

Very concerned 42%

Don’t know 2%

8. In some public school districts in the state, teachers are evaluated every three to five years,

and in other districts, teachers who have received permanent status are never evaluated.

Knowing this, are you not at all concerned, not too concerned, somewhat concerned, or

very concerned that Indiana does not have set requirements for teacher evaluations?


Not at all concerned 4%

Not too concerned 4%

Somewhat concerned 32%

Very concerned 59%

Don’t know 2%

9. In some public schools in Indiana, teachers are evaluated once every three years. Do you

think this too often, not often enough, or just about right?


Too often 2%

Not often enough 52%

Just about right 45%

Don’t know 1%

14


I am going to read you a list of proposals to improve student success and teacher quality in Indiana’s

public schools. Please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly

oppose each (Randomize Q10-Q18)

Response Category (N=600) Strongly

Support

Smwt

Support

Smwt

Oppose

Strongly

Oppose

Don’t

know

10. Make sure that if budget cuts happen, teacher layoffs are

based on teacher performance, including their ability to

increase student academic growth, instead of just seniority. 57% 25% 8% 8% 3%

11. Include student performance data as a factor in teacher

evaluations. 38% 36% 11% 12% 3%

12. Ensure that only teachers who are effective at improving

student academic growth are able to receive and keep their

permanent status. 47% 29% 12% 9% 4%

13. Ensure schools are not forced to keep low-performing

teachers and principals. 68% 21% 5% 4% 2%

14. Require annual evaluations for teachers. 58% 25% 10% 6% 1%

15. Change the scale of teacher evaluations from “effective

or ineffective” to “very effective, effective, needs

improvement, and ineffective.”

55% 34% 4% 2% 5%

16. Reduce class sizes. 61% 24% 5% 4% 7%

17. Provide teachers and principals more flexibility to

improve student achievement in their schools. 74% 22% 2% 1% 2%

18. Give schools the ability to hire teachers based on

demonstrated teacher effectiveness as opposed to teacher

seniority or permanent status.

64% 24% 6% 4% 4%

Support for Senate Bill 1

19. The Indiana state legislature will be considering passing Senate Bill 1 in the 2011 legislative

session. This bill focuses on reforms to how teachers are evaluated, compensated, and their

placement. Before I just mentioned it, had you heard of Senate Bill 1?


Yes 40%

No 58%

Don’t know 2%

15


I am going to read you a list of components of Senate Bill 1. Please tell me if you strongly support,

somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose each of the following components.

(Randomize Q20-Q26)

Response Category (N=600) Strongly

Support

Smwt

Support

Smwt

Oppose

Strongly

Oppose

Don’t

know

20. Change teacher evaluations to include student academic

growth as a factor, not just seniority. 52% 31% 8% 7% 3%

21. Change teacher compensation decisions so that experience

counts for one-third of performance criteria, and other criteria

include student academic growth and teacher leadership.

42% 40% 9% 6% 4%

22. Provide higher pay to educators who teach in high priority

subject areas like math and science that currently don’t have

enough effective teachers.

43% 37% 11% 7% 3%

23. Provide higher pay to educators who work in low-

performing or high poverty schools if they are able to increase

student academic performance.

52% 35% 6% 5% 2%

24. Base teacher placement and dismissal on their ability to

increase student academic performance. 37% 34% 13% 13% 3%

25. Money previously allocated toward teacher seniority and

degrees earned would be redirected to reward teaches for their

students’ success in the classroom, teacher leadership

assignments, and incentives to teach in high priority subject

areas.

38% 37% 11% 11% 4%

26. Individual schools would have more flexibility in hiring and

dismissal. 50% 38% 7% 3% 3%

Teacher Hiring & Dismissal

I’d like to read you some statements about teacher seniority and protecting teachers. For each, please

tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. (Randomize

Q27-Q32)

Response Category (n=600) Strongly

Agree

Smwt

Agree

Smwt

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Don’t

know

27. Teachers with seniority need to be protected otherwise

they will be forced out of jobs since less experienced teachers

are paid less. 22% 28% 25% 21% 5%

28. Teachers with more than three years of seniority in Indiana

public schools should have priority over newly hired teachers

and outside applicants. They’ve earned that.

24% 34% 21% 18% 4%

29. Compared to other problems like school funding and

classroom sizes, how teachers are hired and transferred is just

not as important.

8% 23% 33% 30% 6%

30. Principals should be able to hire the teachers that will best

meet the needs of their school’s students, and they should

never be forced to hire a teacher they don’t think is a good fit

for their school.

76% 16% 4% 2% 1%

31.Basing teacher lay-offs on seniority alone means that

teachers who are more effective may be let go because they

haven’t been teaching as long as other, less effective teachers.

29% 23% 18% 28% 4%

16



Agree

Smwt

Agree

Smwt

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Don’t

know

32.Basing teacher lay-offs on effectiveness means that the best

teachers will stay in the classroom, regardless of their seniority

or salary.

55% 27% 9% 7% 2%

Teacher Permanent Status

Now I would like to ask you some questions about teacher permanent status. As I said earlier, Indiana K-

12 public school teachers are awarded permanent status, which provides them with a high level of job

security, after three years of teaching.

33. Teacher permanent status in Indiana is currently awarded regardless of how effective teachers

are at increasing student academic growth. Would you support or oppose changing the rules

of rewarding permanent status so that it is based in part on teacher effectiveness instead of

just time in the classroom? (Wait and ask) Is that somewhat (support/oppose) or strongly

(support/oppose)?




Somewhat oppose 6%

Strongly oppose 6%

Don’t know 3%

I am going to read you some statements about permanent status. Please tell me if you strongly agree,

somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each. (Randomize Q34-Q37)


Agree

Smwt

Agree

Smwt

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Don’t

know

34. The length of time a teacher spends in the classroom is

critical to their development and it makes sense to base

awarding teacher permanent status solely on the length of time

they have been teaching.

10% 20% 30% 37% 3%

35. Permanent status based solely on time served in the

classroom means that we have teachers in the system who are

not effective but who we cannot replace or dismiss.

39% 25% 12% 20% 4%

36. Teacher permanent status rules should be changed so that it

is only granted after three years of teaching if the teacher has a

proven track record of effectiveness in the classroom and

increasing student academic growth.

43% 38% 8% 8% 4%

37. It is much more difficult to dismiss a teacher with permanent

status than other teachers. Because of this, it doesn’t make sense

to award this job status to teachers unless they have a proven

track record of effectively increasing student academic growth.

50% 32% 8% 6% 3%

17


Support for Senate Bill 1 Concepts Validation

38. Let me read you two statements about staffing in public schools during difficult financial times.

Please tell me which one statement comes closer to your point of view. (Rotate statements;

accept one)


A. When faced with teacher layoffs, schools should make their

decisions about which teachers to let go based on their

seniority in the district.

12%

B. When faced with teacher layoffs, schools should make their

decisions about which teachers to keep based on their

effectiveness in the classroom and ability to increase student

growth.

83%

Don’t know 5%

39. Sometimes people change their mind after hearing more about an issue. Would you support or

oppose changing teacher compensation and placement criteria so that only one-third is based

on teacher seniority and the remaining is based on teachers’ ability to increase student

academic growth and their level of leadership in the district?




Somewhat oppose 8%

Strongly oppose 11%

Don’t know 5%

Demographics

These last few questions are for statistical purposes only.

40. In what age category are you? (Read list)


18-34 22%

35-54 39%

55-64 25%

65+ 13%

Refused 1%

41. Gender (By observation)


Male 48%

Female 52%

18


42. When it comes to politics and voting, do you consider yourself to be more of a Democrat, more of a

Republican, more of an Independent, or member of another party?


Democrat 28%

Republican 33%

Independent/Other party 36%

Refused 4%

43. Vote propensity (From sample)


0 of 4 18%

1 of 4 18%

2 of 4 17%

3 of 4 23%

4 of 4 25%

44. County (From Sample; Code into area of state)


Northern Indiana 32%

Indiana Metro area 26%

Central Indiana 23%

Southern Indiana 19%

45. Do you have children or grandchildren in the Indiana Public Schools? (specify children or

grandchildren)


Yes, children 27%

Yes, grandchildren 24%

No 49%

Don’t know/Refused 0%

46. Are you or is anyone in your household a current or retired teacher?


Yes, self, current 9%

Yes, self, retired 4%

Yes, household, current 8%

Yes, household, retired 2%

No 78%

Don’t know/Refused 0%

47. Do your or anyone in your household belong to a labor union?


Yes 22%

No 77%

Refused 1%

Senate bill 1 poll

Documents

Transcript of Senate bill 1 poll