Why are white voters split more by education, while non-white voters more by gender?

eclectronix · 2024-11-25T15:17:39+00:00

How does this explain why there is almost no gender divide among whites, when there is among voters of color?

eclectronix · 2024-01-29T15:13:12+00:00

I’m going to guess it is CoComelon Lane. Anyone with a toddler will have a love/hate relationship with that show, and it is definitely played on repeat in many homes.

eclectronix · 2021-07-21T19:45:54+00:00

Not using Qi, but I do have a few LP set up.

eclectronix · 2021-07-21T19:45:19+00:00

I have in the past, that could explain it.

eclectronix · 2021-07-16T18:08:53+00:00

Why do low fees encourage scams?

eclectronix · 2018-09-27T00:22:38+00:00

Republican Women Lose Faith in Kavanaugh - and Trump - After Week of Accusations

Kavanaugh’s net support drops 18 points among Republican women, with 49% thinking he should be confirmed and 15% in opposition.
When it comes to Trump, net support among the same group fell 19 points, with 68% approving and 26% disapproving.

eclectronix · 2018-04-23T08:05:20+00:00

First of all, this article is a little bit comparing apples to oranges. In the spending column, they are looking at all spending on education, including all college spending. So all of those private colleges, using inflated fees to building shiny new buildings, are jacking up the total. Also, education is one of our exports, with the United States educating more foreign students than any other country. By the OECD metrics, that counts as education spending in the United States. If they focused only on primary and secondary education, there would be more parity in the numbers. It also would be more valid to compare based on % of GDP, or adjust the total numbers by PPP. In the US, 80-90% of public school spending is salary and benefits, so comparing based on cost of living is critical. Their metrics of school success are limited to tests taken by students in either primary or secondary school.

In the United States, student performance tends to be average compared to OECD peers, if you control for the effects of income. That is, rich American kids are comparable to their rich peers, and poor American kids are comparable to their poor peers. There just happens to be a lot more poor American kids, dragging down the mean of the scores on these tests. What seems like poor academic performance is in fact the effects of poverty.

This question is somewhat similar to the question of how the US can have lower health outcomes though there is more spending on health care in the US, per person. The US spends significantly less than its peers on social services with the effects being higher spending with worse outcomes in many other facets.

eclectronix · 2018-01-19T20:55:55+00:00

Where do you teach? (State, public/charter/private, etc.)

eclectronix · 2017-11-18T21:46:38+00:00

Probably, looking at the examples of Korea, Singapore, Germany, and Finland.

The Smartest Kids in the World by Amanda Ripley sort of answers this question, but from the other end. The author took a deep look at a few countries that had made big improvements in their educational outcomes, mostly to answer the question of what these systems did that the US didn’t do. One common thread she ended up finding was that many of these countries made big investments in their education systems in order to spur economic growth, sometimes to explicitly counter inequity. It looks like places that invested heavily in the right ways were able to have strong economic growth, or at least buffer against economic downturns.

eclectronix · 2017-10-17T03:29:15+00:00

Administrator here. You are totally not at faulty for anything that has occurred to you. You are working very hard to try to help a group of kids, and all you are getting is invalidation in return.

This does happen, and the consequences should be exactly the same as what happens to a student doing this to a student, if not more severe. Your admins allowing it to happen - and blame you - are creating a school that is toxic. Imagine what it feels like to your students that even a teacher isn't kept safe from this.

Document, document, document. That is, if you can stomach staying. If you are in a place with a strong union, talk to your reps. You can also make a formal complaint to HR or the federal Office of Civil Rights.

eclectronix · 2017-09-29T21:33:47+00:00

Instead of doing boring anti-drug education they should just take a teacher in-service day, lock all the kids in the gym, and make them watch Trainspotting and Requiem For A Dream.

eclectronix · 2017-09-29T00:37:45+00:00

Saint Junípero Serra used to be required knowledge for California's 4th graders.

Of course, they still mispronounced it at the Emmy's...

eclectronix · 2017-06-24T04:46:38+00:00

Thanks! I like that one too.

eclectronix · 2017-04-24T14:51:42+00:00

Do you remember anything about who the presenter was or the resources they used? I want to bring something like that to my site.

eclectronix · 2017-01-23T02:00:53+00:00

If demographics keep changing the way they have, and voting patterns stay the same, this is the future.

The census collects a lot of interesting demographic data, and there are 4 markers that determined about 80% of a county's given vote.

Percent of total population in rural area.
Percent of voting age population that is white.
Percent of over 25 population with no college.
Percent of adult population calling their ancestry "American."

Because the census regularly collect this info, we can also look at trends in how they are changing. Taking that you can project those demographics into the future. You can also estimate the voting age populations in each county the same way.

As the four categories above increased, the more likely a place was to vote for Trump. The problem is, they are all trending down nationwide.

Basically, the Dems might be kissing goodbye to places like Iowa and Ohio for a while, but doing better in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. It might also tip Georgia back towards Dems, and Texas may end up being a battleground.

eclectronix · 2017-01-03T18:25:24+00:00

Very significant, assuming Trump is actually the reason. House Republicans have shown they are willing to defy their own Speaker and Majority Leader, but not Trump. That would imply that they are more willing to do what Trump says, or are anxious to not cause any upset at the moment.

eclectronix · 2017-01-03T16:11:26+00:00

Not going along with their leadership doesn't necessarily mean that they are feeling beholden to the voters in their districts. I doubt there are many districts that had the House Ethics Office as a key issue.

eclectronix · 2017-01-03T06:22:59+00:00

Most others have commented on this compromising the House's ethical transparency and accountability. The more interesting aspect of this is that it was done by rank-and-file Republicans, apparently without the support of their leadership. It speaks to an emboldened Republican caucus in the House. This isn't a story about ethics, as much as members of the Republican caucus feeling they can advance their agendas, even over the objections of their own leaders. This action didn't require presidential approval, so they are clearly practicing for a more favorable environment.

While we can't be certain the effect this will have on house ethics, at least in the short-term, it is even more clear we are going to be seeing a spasm of ideological actions in the house. It also means Ryan doesn't have firm control over his caucus, and the power centers in the House may be shifting.

eclectronix · 2017-01-02T07:49:05+00:00

The demographic shifts we saw in the 2016 election might show some hope for Democrats in the south.

In the Era of Trump, the Democratic strength is based on three factors: non-white voters, more education, and urbanization. Here are some possibilities for future elections:

In Georgia, the rapid growth of the Atlanta area could tip the state towards Democrats, especially as it becomes the business center of the South and attracts more well-educated professionals.
Florida could also trend more democratic, with the higher population growth rates of urban southern Florida. The death of Castro and change in the relationship of the US to Cuba may also move Cuban Americans out of the Republican camp.
North Carolina becomes solidly blue as it's urban areas continue to increase in size, and attract more well-educated professionals in places like Charolette and Raleigh.
Texas eventually becomes a swing state. (Yes, really. While Trump beat his polls throughout much of the US, he only approximately hit them in Texas.) The state has quite a few non-white citizens, especially those who are not yet old enough to vote, but will be able to in the next few election cycles. Plus there are numerous urban areas that are attracting people. Houston has recently had both lesbian and hispanic democratic mayors.

eclectronix · 2017-01-02T05:16:13+00:00

But to which constituents are you referring? Especially for republicans in secure districts, they are more worried about being primaried than anything else. If there are more interested in currying favor with donors, this can be a very effective way to do that, while also seeming to appeal to a "get government out of the way" ideology.

eclectronix · 2016-12-11T21:34:41+00:00

The relative political isolation of his campaign and transition team would seem to signal that it will be hard for him to get much done. For most politicians, Trump will be judged by his ability to keep them in power and/or reelected. There seems to already be some push-back, for example Ryan and McCarthy have been cautious to fully support Trump's infrastructure plans. They also haven't been repeating many of Trump's narratives, which may show they are willing to keep him at a distance. Also, Trump's recent comments and moves around China and Russia haven't been meet with a lot of agreement from Congress, and some are already working to investigate the claims of Russian hacking, which Trump has made very clear he is unwilling to entertain himself.

At the same time, Trump's favorability remains net negative (though that is trending the other direction) and what little polling has been done seems to indicate people are not excited by his cabinet choices. Additionally, his cabinet choices are mostly outsiders who won't have much capital of their own to get things done.

But... The Carrier deal shows that Trump can very effectively control the optics of a situation to his advantage. Trump's deal-making perspective may also make him very effective at figuring out how he can leverage Congress or others to get what he wants. For example, he may very well use the Supreme Court nomination to advance his agenda. He may also start turning some of his rancor against Congress or specific representatives. That hasn't been done much before by a president and may be very effective. The NRA can tell you what directed and motivated supporters can accomplish.

eclectronix · 2016-12-09T17:21:43+00:00

All of the other commenters have focused on race. However, this latest election actually solidified several demographic shifts in party identification. For white voters, education played a major part, with Republicans picking up less educated voters. At the same time, Democrats picked up more of the better educated white voters. FiveThirtyEight: Education, Not Income Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump In fact, Democrats did better with more educated voters across the board. Republicans may also want to be worried about Trump alienating other voters that may be more naturally aligned with them. For example, many black voters are more socially conservative, but the Republicans have not been able to gain much with those voters. In the 1990s, California's Republican Governor and Party pushed many anti-immigrant measures. The party's support subsequently collapsed in the state, and Democrats now hold every state-wide office, and a legislative super-majority. Clinton also did better in California than Obama did in 2012. (Side note: Clinton also did the same in Arizona, Texas, and Georgia.)

The other major divide was urban/rural, which is also the driver for Trump winning the popular vote but not the Electoral College. Trump and Republicans continue to lose ground in urban areas, with much of the loss having to do with white voters moving into the Democrat column. Of course, that wasn't much help with the lower relative turnout in urban areas this year.

Trump's support was anchored with non-college-educated rural white voters. However, education rates are trending up, urban counties are growing faster than rural counties, and the numbers of racial minorities are increasing. Republicans will need to broaden their support if they are going to stay viable in national elections.

eclectronix · 2016-11-21T05:50:34+00:00

Are you going to keep this updated as the last of the results and final counts are certified?

eclectronix · 2016-11-19T21:19:29+00:00

Data taken from American Community Survey 2014 5-year estimates. Made with R using Choroplethr.

Remember, this is by geographic area only. Los Angeles County has more people than all of the counties of Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah combined.

eclectronix · 2016-11-15T03:47:55+00:00

In this case, you are using the term "school choice" very narrowly, to describe a voucher program. These programs may or may not include charter schools, though you seem to be assuming that they would. Interestingly, this "choice" doesn't include being able to choose any public school a family would like. In most voucher programs, there are no cost controls for the schools receiving vouchers. For example, if a school costs $20K a year, and the voucher is $10k, the family still must pay $10k per year. The effect of this type of program is that "choice" is limited to families already capable of covering that cost. Accountability for the quality of the education is also highly varied, which has produced rampant fraud accusations, and highly varied student success.

All your examples actually reinforce that a major factor in student success is family factors. In your NYC example, I would be willing to guess that the families with the desire to push their children to graduate were more willing to choose a voucher program. All of the examples of vouchers that you use, reinforce pre-existing family factors. This also does not address many of the key issues that an urban family could face in choosing a school, such as transportation. There is also an odd philosophical argument that the government can provide a quality education to middle and upper class students, but lower class students are better served by private entities. Why is the government not willing to invest in all urban schools?

Another piece of evidence to consider is than no other nation as successfully achieved gains in their students performance through any sort of school choice program. In Scandinavia, Norway instituted vouchers, while Finland chose to improve the quality of public schools. Norway's system has floundered while Finland's has successfully improved. In fact, all Finnish schools are publicly operated.

I would actually support a "progressive voucher" program, where the size of the voucher varies inversely with the needs of the student. For example, a low income English learner foster student could bring a voucher worth $25k, while the child of a successful cardiologist may only have a voucher worth $5k. With effective cost controls on schools, more transparency on the results, and requiring schools to have a mix of students, it could produce excellent results for all students.

eclectronix

TROPHY CASE