What policies would do the most to increase opportunity for children? The latest College Board/National Journal Next America Poll finds relatively broad consensus on what options provide the most effective points of leverage — but stubborn differences remain between Democrats and Republicans, and between whites and minorities.
As the following tables show, minorities are consistently more likely than whites, and Democrats more likely than Republicans, to believe that each of eight possible interventions would be a “major factor” in helping more young people succeed.
The gaps between Democrats and Republicans are widest on investing more in health services for pregnant women and young children, providing more college aid, and expanding access to pre-K. Still, a solid majority of Republicans say more college aid would help and even a slight majority of them believe expanded pre-K could exert a major influence on increasing opportunity. The partisan differences are much narrower on reducing class sizes in K-12 schools, increasing salaries to attract more talented teachers, and expanding vocational-education options after high school.
Viewed through a racial lens, whites are notably less enthusiastic than minorities about expanding pre-K or health services for pregnant women and very young children — though in each case just over half of whites believe the idea could have a major impact. Interestingly, whites are also much less enthusiastic than minorities about “providing more families public money to help attend private, rather than public, schools.” Both whites and nonwhites are most optimistic about the impact of expanding vocational options, with increasing college aid a close second.
Generational differences were telling, too. At least three-fifths of adults under 30 saw major impact in every option except reducing class sizes or providing public aid for private schools. With these young adults, increasing college aid, expanding vocational options, and requiring more academically challenging middle-school and high school courses topped the list. Seniors generally expressed similar priorities, but far fewer of them — only about half in each case — expected major impact from expanding pre-K or health services for pregnant mothers and young children.
The College Board/National Journal Next America Poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, surveyed 1,271 adults, including oversamples of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans, from March 18-26. The interviews were conducted by landline and cell phone in English and Spanish. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points for the entire sample, and larger margins for racial subgroups.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."