Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T
Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T
Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T
Table of Contents
T AB LE O F C O N TE N TS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Testing Two Alternatives: Parcel Tax & Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Importance of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Initial Ballot Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Related Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Negative Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Alternative Parcel Tax Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Importance of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Question 1: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Initial Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Question 2: Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Question 2: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Support by Measure Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Reasons for Opposing Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Question 3: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Tax Threshold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Question 4: Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Question 4: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Price Sensitivity by Initial Support for Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Related Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Quality of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Question 5: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Need for Renovated & Upgraded Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Question 6: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Question 7: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Item Ratings by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Question 8: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Question 9: Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Question 9: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Although the District has performed exceptionally well to date given the limited funding it
receives from the State, the economic recession and draconian State budget cuts threaten to
undermine the District’s ability to maintain an outstanding educational environment. The loss of
millions of dollars in State funding will force teacher layoffs, class size increases, and deep cuts
to educational programs.
The District also has extensive needs with respect to school facilities. In 2000, the District asked
voters for assistance in funding needed repairs and renovations to school facilities by passing a
general obligation bond, Measure Y. In addition to the $48 million raised by Measure Y, the Dis-
trict has been able to leverage additional state matching funds and make use of other District
resources. Despite these substantial investments, however, facility renovations and improve-
ments remain for which the District does not have a funding source.
To help close the funding gaps noted above, the District will need the financial support of the
communities it serves through the passage of a local revenue measure.
MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an
unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters’ interest in supporting a local revenue mea-
sure to partially close the funding gaps noted above. Additionally, should the District decide to
move forward with a revenue measure, the survey data provides guidance as to how to structure
a measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs.
Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for a local revenue measure to fund school programs and/
or facility needs
• Identify the tax rate that the community is willing to support
• Identify the types of services and facility improvements that voters are most interested in
funding, should the measure pass
• Expose voters to arguments in favor of, and against, the proposed tax measure to gauge
how information affects support for the measure, and
• Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information
they will likely be exposed to during the election cycle.
It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often some-
what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim-
ited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and
feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the elec-
TESTING TWO ALTERNATIVES: PARCEL TAX & BOND One of the objectives of the
study was to determine how support for a local measure may vary depending on the type of
financial mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obligation bond. To reliably estimate sup-
port for both types of measures, a split-sample methodology was employed such that 300 voters
were administered a survey that focused on a parcel tax, whereas a separate 300 voters were
asked questions regarding a potential bond measure. All 600 respondents received generic
questions that applied to both types of measures. For more on the sampling design and the rea-
sons for using a split-sample approach, see Split-Sample Method on page 43.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech-
niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 43. In brief, the survey was administered
by telephone to a random sample of 600 registered voters in the Claremont Unified School Dis-
trict who are likely to participate in the November 2010 election under a high turnout scenario.
The survey was administered between April 23 and May 4, 2010 and the average interview lasted
16 minutes.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who
prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions
are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the surveys in bul-
let-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is
followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the surveys by
topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for col-
lecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaires used for
the interviews are contained at the back of this report and a complete set of crosstabulations for
the survey results are contained in Appendix A for the parcel tax version, Appendix B for the
bond version.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the Claremont Unified School District and TBWB
for the opportunity to assist the District in this important effort. Their collective expertise,
insight, and local knowledge improved the overall quality of the research presented here.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors
(Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those
of the Claremont USD. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to
providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities and
concerns of their residents and voters. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys,
focus groups and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True
During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 500 survey
research studies for public agencies, including more than 200 revenue measure feasibility stud-
ies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, more
than 90% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to
over $19 billion in successful local revenue measures.
IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES
• When presented with a list of specific issues and asked to rate the importance of each, main-
taining the quality of education in our local schools received the highest percentage of
respondents indicating that the issue was either extremely or very important (90%), followed
by maintaining local property values (72%), and protecting the environment (70%). Prevent-
ing local tax increases was rated much lower in importance than maintaining the quality of
education (50% compared with 90%).
• Bond Version: With only the information provided in the ballot language, 59% of respon-
dents indicated they would definitely or probably support the proposed $145 million bond
measure. Approximately 33% said they would oppose the bond measure at this point in the
survey, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.
• Those who opposed the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test were most likely to cite taxes
already being too high (21%), perceived mismanagement of funds/wasteful spending by the
District (19%), or a reference to a past measure that was ineffective (13%) as the reason for
their opposition.
• Parcel Tax Version: With only the information provided in the ballot language, 66% of vot-
ers indicated they would support a parcel tax of up to $139 per year. Approximately 30%
stated that they would oppose the parcel tax measure at this point in the survey, whereas 4%
were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.
• Those who opposed the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test were most likely to cite
taxes already being too high (24%), followed by a belief that the District should live within its
means (16%), has issues other than money to address (15%), or has mismanaged/wasted
funds (13%) as the reason for their opposition.
TAX THRESHOLD
• Bond Version: Support for the bond measure varied substantially according to the proposed
tax rate. At the highest tax rate tested ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation) 54% of likely
November 2010 voters surveyed indicated they would vote in favor of the measure. Incre-
mental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea-
sure, with 63% of those surveyed indicating they would support the proposed bond measure
at an annual tax rate of $25 per $100,000 assessed valuation.
• Parcel Tax Version: Support for the parcel tax also varied by the proposed rate. When
focused on the tax rate, support at the highest tax rate tested ($139 per parcel per year) was
found among 60% of likely November 2010 voters. Incremental reductions in the tax rate
resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 66% of those surveyed
indicating they would support the parcel tax measure at an annual tax rate of $79 per parcel
per year.
• When asked to rate the overall quality of education provided in the Claremont Unified School
District, more than three-quarters (78%) rated the quality of education as excellent (39%) or
good (39%), 9% indicated it is fair, and less than 2% described it as poor or very poor. An
additional 11% were unsure or declined to provide their opinion.
• Overall, 39% of voters perceived that the District has a great need for additional money, and
a similar percentage (36%) felt that the District’s need for additional money was moderate.
Approximately 15% perceived that the District has little (8%) or no need (7%) for additional
money, and 10% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.
• Bond Version: Overall, the item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents
for the bond measure was removing hazardous materials from school sites like lead and
asbestos (80% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by upgrading classroom computers
and technology (78%), and repairing or replacing old, worn-out roofs, plumbing, lighting,
and electrical systems (77%).
• Parcel Tax Version: The item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents for
the parcel tax measure was providing advanced programs in math, science and technology
(90% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by attracting and retaining the best qualified
teachers (89%), keeping school libraries open (88%), and maintaining school safety and secu-
rity personnel (87%).
POSITIVE ARGUMENTS
When presented with arguments in favor of the measures, voters found the following arguments
to be the most persuasive:
Bond Version
• Bond Version: After being presented with programs and projects that could be funded as
well as arguments in favor of the bond measure, overall support for the measure among
likely November 2010 voters climbed by 4% to 63%, with 32% of respondents opposed to the
measure and an additional 6% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
• Parcel Tax Version: After being presented with programs and projects that could be funded
as well as arguments in favor of the parcel tax measure, overall support for the parcel tax
increased by 2% to 68%, with 27% of respondents opposed to the measure, and 5% unsure or
unwilling to state their vote choice.
NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Of the arguments in opposition to the measures, voters found the following arguments to be the
most persuasive:
Bond Version
• People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy-
ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes.
• The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond
money raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised.
• Experts say that raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more.
• People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy-
ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes.
• The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond
money raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised.
• The District needs to live within its means—just like everyone else. If they cut waste, they
would not have to raise taxes.
• Bond Version: After being presented with projects that could be funded by the measure,
possible tax rates, as well as arguments in favor and against the measure, support for the
bond measure was found among 60% of voters, with 35% opposed to the measure and 5%
unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
• Parcel Tax Version: After being presented with projects that could be funded by the mea-
sure, possible tax rates, as well as arguments in favor and against the measure, support for
the parcel tax cooled down to 64%, with 31% opposed to the measure and 5% unsure or
unwilling to state their vote choice.
• In addition to the 64% of voters who said they would support the $139 parcel tax at the Final
Ballot Test, 4% indicated they would support the measure if the tax increase were instead
$99 per parcel, which brings the overall support for the measure at $96 per parcel to
approximately 68%.
Should the Claremont Yes. The vast majority of voters in the District consider maintaining the
Unified School District quality of education in public schools to be the most important issue fac-
proceed with plans to
ing residents—even more important than improving public safety, pro-
place a revenue mea-
sure before voters in tecting the environment, reducing traffic congestion, and preventing
November 2010? local tax increases. The results of this feasibility study suggest that, if
packaged appropriately and combined with a broad-based and well-
orchestrated public education effort, a revenue measure to help fund
school services, programs and facilities has a good chance of being sup-
ported by the necessary proportion of voters.
Which funding mecha- One of the objectives of the study was to determine how support for a
nism should be selected local revenue measure may vary depending on the type of financial
for the revenue mea-
mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obligation bond. Although
sure?
the research suggests that both types of measures are potentially feasi-
ble, the results clearly indicate that a bond is a less risky option for the
November 2010 ballot.
The natural level of support among likely November voters for a $145
million bond measure was 59%, which is 4% above the 55% threshold
required for passage of a Prop 39 bond. Moreover, once voters were
exposed to positive messages about the bond support increased to 63%
and was relatively resistant to negative messages.
Although the natural level of support for a parcel tax was somewhat
higher at 66%, the required threshold for passing a parcel tax is also
higher (two-thirds supermajority). In contrast to the patterns found with
the bond, voters did not respond as strongly to positive messages about
the parcel tax (increasing their support by just 2%), and the negative
messages had a larger impact. The result was that support for a $139
parcel tax declined somewhat over the course of the interview and at 64%
Due to the higher levels of support for a bond relative to the required
threshold for passage, it has a higher likelihood of success on the
November 2010 ballot when compared to a parcel tax.1
Are there additional con- Yes. In addition to enjoying a higher level of support relative to the
siderations that make a required threshold for passage, a bond has several additional qualities
bond a better option for
or considerations that make it the best option for the November 2010
the November 2010 bal-
lot? ballot. One of the most compelling advantages of a bond is that it will
provide the District with the ability to address its facility needs as well as
its operational needs. Through relieving debt, cutting energy costs, and
paying for ongoing technology expenses that are currently being
financed through the general fund, a bond can free-up money to retain
qualified teachers, maintain small class sizes, and fund important aca-
demic programs.
The November 2010 ballot is also a good time to pass a bond. It will
enable the District to take advantage of historically low interest rates and
construction costs before they rise, and will position the District for fed-
eral stimulus programs and California Solar Incentives before they
expire.
How will the tax rate Naturally, the willingness of voters to support a specific revenue mea-
affect support for the sure is contingent—in part—on the tax rate associated with the measure.
measure?
The higher the rate, all other things being equal, the lower the level of
aggregate support that can be expected. It is critical that the rate be set
at a level that the necessary proportion of voters view as affordable.
For the bond, the research indicates that voters are reasonably comfort-
able with the tax rates that could be associated with a $145 million
bond. Support ranged from 54% to 63% as the potential tax rate varied
from $45 to $25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
For the parcel tax, voters were clearly more sensitive to the potential
rates being considered. When their attention was focused on the tax
rate, just 60% of voters indicated that they would support a $139 parcel
tax. Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental
increases in support for the measure, although even at $79 per parcel
support did not quite reach the required two-thirds threshold.
1. It is important to note, moreover, that by chance the parcel tax survey was administered to a sample that
had a more tax-friendly profile than that used for the bond survey—including a higher percentage of parents
of school-aged children, Democrats and renters. The parcel tax sample modeled a turnout that would be
achieved through a very effective get-out-the-vote campaign, and yet even with this profile support levels did
not reach the two-thirds threshold for much of the survey.
It is clear from the survey results that voters’ opinions about the pro-
posed measures are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of
information that they have about the measures. Information about the
specific services and facilities that could be funded by the measures, as
well as arguments in favor of the measures, were found by many voters
to be compelling reasons to support the measures. Moreover, this infor-
mation played an important role in preventing a substantial erosion of
support for the measures once respondents were exposed to the types
of opposition arguments they will likely encounter during an election
cycle.
Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the
measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized campaign to
that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits
that it will bring.
How might the eco- An important component of any ballot measure’s potential for success is
nomic or political cli- the economic and political climate surrounding the election. Concerns
mate alter support for
about the housing market, an unstable stock market, job losses, and the
the measure?
recession have done little to raise consumer confidence—which has yet
to rebound substantially from all-time lows reached last year. Together
with the state of the economy, lingering concerns about the ongoing war
in Iraq and the State budget crisis combine to create an economic and
political climate that is not as favorable to revenue measures as it has
been in prior years.
The results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be
viewed in light of the current times. Indeed, the results for the proposed
measures are reasonably strong despite the general economic malaise,
which speaks volumes about the value that Claremont residents place on
maintaining the quality of local schools. Nevertheless, it is important to
keep in mind that this poll is a snapshot in time. Should the economy
and/or political climate change in ways that would be more favorable,
support for the measure—and the potential effectiveness of a positive
education campaign—could increase considerably. Conversely, negative
economic and/or political developments, especially at the local level,
could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this
study.
Figure 1 presents each issue tested, as well as the importance assigned to each issue by survey
participants, sorted by order of importance.2 Overall, the most important issue was maintaining
the quality of education in our local schools (90% extremely or very important), followed by
maintaining local property values (72%), and protecting the environment (70%). Given the pur-
pose of this study, it is instructive to note that preventing local tax increases was rated much
lower in importance than maintaining the quality of education (50% compared with 90%).
Question 1: Both Versions To begin, I'm going to read a list of issues facing your community
and for each one, please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of
extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents
2. Issues were ranked based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the issue was either
extremely important or very important.
The motivation for placing Question 2 up-front in the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a
measure can often depend on the amount of information they have about a measure. At this
point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the proposed mea-
sure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. This situation is analogous to a voter cast-
ing a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence
of an effective education campaign. Question 2, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a
good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today. Because the Initial Ballot
Test provides a gauge of ‘uninformed’ support for the measure, it also serves a second purpose
in that it provides a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items
conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.
Question 2: Bond Version Your household is within the Claremont Unified School District.
Later this year, voters in the District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read
you a summary of the measure. In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-
dents; attract and retain quality teachers; and qualify for millions in State matching money,
shall the Claremont Unified School District repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating class-
rooms and school buildings; improve fire, safety and security systems; remove hazardous mate-
rials like lead and asbestos; and upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and
instructional technology by issuing 145 million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates, with man-
datory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were
held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 2: Parcel Tax Version Your household is within the Claremont Unified School Dis-
trict. Later this year, voters in the District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me
read you a summary of the measure. In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the
impact of State budget cuts at our local schools; attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-
selors and school security personnel; maintain small class sizes; and continue funding advanced
academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement
shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139 per parcel
for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all funds staying local to
benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
100
4.4
7.8
Refused
90
20.7
80 20.5
Not sure
70 9.2
12.2
% Respondents
60 Definite ly no
22.2
50
22.5
Probably no
40
30
Probably yes
20
43.4
36.0
10 Definite ly yes
0
Bond Parcel Tax
SUPPORT BY MEASURE TYPE Figure 2 presents the results of the Initial Ballot Test for
both the bond and parcel tax measures. Overall, 59% of respondents indicated that they would
definitely or probably support a $145 million bond measure that would repair and renovate out-
dated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildings, improve fire, safety and security systems,
remove hazardous materials like lead and asbestos, upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, comput-
ers and instructional technology, and provide general fund relief to attract and retain qualified
teachers. Approximately 33% stated that they would oppose the bond measure at this point in
the survey, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. The level of support
recorded for the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 4% above the 55%
threshold required for passage of a Prop 39 bond in California.
Support for the parcel tax measure was somewhat stronger, although the required threshold for
passing a parcel tax measure is also higher. Overall, 66% of voters initially indicated they would
support a parcel tax of up to $139 per year to protect the quality of education and reduce the
impact of State budget cuts at our local schools, attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-
selors and school security personnel, maintain small class sizes, and continue funding advanced
academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement.
Approximately 30% stated that they would oppose the parcel tax measure at this point in the sur-
vey, whereas 4% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. The level of support
recorded for the parcel tax at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 1% below the two-thirds
threshold required for passage of a special tax in California.
Ap proximate %
of Voter % Prob ab ly or
Univers e Def initely Yes % Not su re
Overall 100 58.5 7.8
Less than 5 10 73.8 3.3
Ye ars in Cla re mont Area 5 to 9 19 56.4 9.7
(QD1) 10 to 14 15 62.3 7.4
15 or more 56 55.6 8.1
Current 28 54.5 19.8
District Child in Hsld Pa st 38 56.4 5.2
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 65.7 0.0
Neve r 26 63.4 3.1
Family Member Employe d Yes 45 66.9 5.8
in Education (QD6) No 55 51.0 9.6
Ma le 45 52.4 5.6
Gender
Female 55 63.7 9.7
18 to 29 9 73.5 7.3
30 to 39 8 47.1 0.0
Age 40 to 49 19 46.8 14.0
50 to 64 35 56.8 5.6
65 or older 30 66.8 8.6
Democrat 49 74.8 3.8
Pa rty Republica n 33 35.1 11.8
Other / DTS 18 60.7 10.6
Single dem 20 74.5 1.3
Dual dem 20 73.4 7.7
Single rep 9 27.7 13.3
Household P arty Ty pe
Dual re p 15 36.3 12.6
Other 15 59.1 10.8
Mixed 22 56.7 6.4
2010 to 2005 32 68.5 7.5
2004 to 2001 22 54.9 9.7
Registration Year 2000 to 1997 16 61.7 5.4
1996 to 1990 12 41.9 6.4
Before 1990 19 54.9 8.8
Yes 76 54.8 8.1
Home ow ner on Vote r File
No 24 71.3 6.8
Yes 25 59.0 9.3
Likely to Vote by Mail
No 75 58.4 7.4
Yes 63 58.9 7.2
Like ly June 2010 Vote r
No 37 57.9 8.8
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 62.7 7.4
V oter No 55 55.2 8.1
Yes 83 58.4 7.6
Like ly Nov 2010 Vote r
No 17 59.0 9.0
Ap proximate %
of Voter % Prob ab ly or
Univers e Def initely Yes % Not su re
Overall 100 65.6 4.4
Less than 5 10 82.8 0.0
Ye ars in Cla re mont Area 5 to 9 19 64.9 5.4
(QD1) 10 to 14 15 60.5 3.1
15 or more 56 64.9 4.7
Current 28 73.1 5.7
District Child in Hsld Pa st 38 63.6 1.7
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 49.6 2.4
Neve r 26 65.7 5.6
Family Member Employe d Yes 45 76.0 2.7
in Education (QD6) No 55 58.8 5.2
Ma le 45 62.9 2.6
Gender
Female 55 67.9 5.8
18 to 29 9 31.2 18.2
30 to 39 8 69.2 0.0
Age 40 to 49 19 71.9 2.8
50 to 64 35 61.3 3.4
65 or older 30 74.9 4.0
Democrat 49 77.3 1.7
Pa rty Republica n 33 49.8 8.4
Other / DTS 18 61.8 4.6
Single dem 20 84.0 4.0
Dual dem 20 80.1 0.0
Single rep 9 54.2 13.5
Household P arty Ty pe
Dual re p 15 45.7 4.4
Other 15 67.0 5.7
Mixed 22 51.9 2.8
2010 to 2005 32 67.6 7.6
2004 to 2001 22 63.2 1.4
Registration Year 2000 to 1997 16 67.5 0.0
1996 to 1990 12 72.5 4.8
Before 1990 19 58.2 5.2
Yes 76 65.3 2.7
Home ow ner on Vote r File
No 24 66.7 9.1
Yes 25 64.8 2.9
Likely to Vote by Mail
No 75 66.0 4.9
Yes 63 65.9 3.7
Like ly June 2010 Vote r
No 37 65.2 5.4
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 69.7 1.9
V oter No 55 62.2 6.5
Yes 83 63.8 4.2
Like ly Nov 2010 Vote r
No 17 75.0 5.3
REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure at Ques-
tion 2 were subsequently asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Question 3
was asked in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to mention any reason that
came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North
later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3
for the bond, Figure 4 for the parcel tax. The most frequently-mentioned reasons for opposing
the bond were taxes already being too high (21%), perceived mismanagement of funds/wasteful
spending by the District (19%), or a reference to a past measure that was ineffective (13%). The
most frequently-mentioned reason for opposing the parcel tax was also the concern that taxes
are already too high (24%), followed by a belief that the District should live within its means
(16%), has issues other than money to address (15%), or has mismanaged/wasted funds (13%).
0 5 10 15 20 25
Refused 0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Question 4 was designed to do just that. Respondents were first instructed that the measure
would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property
owners in the school district, but that the amount to be charged had not yet been determined.
They were then presented with the highest tax rate ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation for the
bond; $139 per year per property for the parcel tax) and asked if they would support the pro-
posed measure at that rate. If a respondent did not answer ‘definitely yes’, they were asked
whether they would support the measure at the next lowest tax rate. The three tax rates tested
and the percentage of respondents who indicated they would vote in favor of the measure at
each rate are shown in Figure 5 for the bond, Figure 6 for the parcel tax.
Question 4: Bond Version The amount each home owner will pay if the school bond passes
depends on the assessed value of their home, not the current market value of the home. If you
heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per 100,000 dollars of
assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no on the school bond measure?
$45 per $100K 31.5 54% 22.6 11.0 40% 29.0 4.6
$35 per $100K 35.7 57% 21.5 8.3 37% 29.0 4.5
$25 per $100K 44.5 63% 18.8 6.4 32% 25.4 3.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Bond Version Respondents
The most obvious pattern revealed in both figures is that voters are somewhat price sensitive
when it comes to their support for the proposed measure. When their attention is focused on the
tax rate, at the highest tax rate tested for the bond ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation) 54%
of likely November 2010 voters surveyed indicated they would vote in favor of the measure.
Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea-
The parcel tax results showed similar sensitivity. The ballot language tested in Question 2 men-
tioned that the tax rate would be up to $139 per year, thus leaving open the possibility of it
being a lower amount. When Question 4 focused the respondent’s attention on the tax rate and
clarified that the rate would be a specific amount, support at the highest tax rate tested ($139
per parcel per year) was found among 60% of likely November 2010 voters. Incremental reduc-
tions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 66% of
those surveyed indicating they would support the parcel tax measure at an annual tax rate of
$79 per parcel per year.
Question 4: Parcel Tax Version The measure I just described would raise money through
annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owners in the school district.
However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you heard
that your household would pay ______ per year for each property that you own in the district,
would you vote yes or no on the measure?
$139 per year 40.9 60% 19.1 9.4 35% 25.4 4.3
$99 per year 47.8 65% 17.1 7.9 31% 23.5 3.1
$79 per year 52.3 66% 13.5 7.4 31% 23.7 2.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Parcel Tax Version Respondents
100
$45 per $100K $35 per $100K $25 per $100K
% UUT Version Respondents That Said Definitely
90
90
or Probably Yes at Initial Ballot Test
80 84
80
70
60
50
40
41
38
30 34
20
22
10
16
13
0
Defintely or probably yes Definite ly or probably no Not sure
QUALITY OF EDUCATION The first question in this series asked voters to rate the overall
quality of education provided in the Claremont Unified School District. As shown in Figure 8,
opinions were very positive overall. More than three-quarters (78%) rated the quality of education
as excellent (39%) or good (39%), 9% indicated it is fair, and less than 2% described it as poor or
very poor. An additional 11% were unsure or declined to provide their opinion.
Question 5: Both Versions In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in
the Claremont Unified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very
poor?
Refused
Very po o r 0.7
0.9 Not s ure
10.8
Po o r
0.9
Fair
8.7 Excellent
38.8
Go o d
39.1
Figures 9 and 10 on the next page display how perceptions of the quality of education provided
in the Claremont Unified School District varied across a host of voter subgroups. Although there
were some differences in opinion (e.g., those who have never had children in the District were
less likely to rate the quality of education as excellent), the most striking pattern in the figures is
the relative consistency of opinion. Regardless of subgroup category, voters in Claremont have a
high opinion of the District’s performance in educating students.
100
% Resp ondents Who Provided Opinion
90
80
Good
70
41 .1 53.2 44.9 46.1 36 .7
44.5 4 3.8 4 9.6 45.2
60 45.9
50
40
30 Exc ellent
46.3 46.9 50 .4
20 49 .5 42.8 41.8 37.9 4 1.9 4 0.2 42.2
10
0
C urre nt Past Future Nev er Ye s No Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more
D istrict Child in Hsld (QD3,4,5) Family Me mbe r Emplo ye d in Ye ars in C laremo nt Area (QD1)
Education (QD6)
100
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
90
80
35.7
70 48.4
Good 45.7 40.2
51.3
60 48.8
47.0
50 43.2
40
30 58.4
Excelle nt 44.6 48.1 46.9
20 39.3
40.2 31.6 29.3
10
0
Defin itely y es Probably y e s Prob ably no Definitely no De finitely y es Probably y es Probab ly no Definitely no
Initial Ballot Test: Bond (Q2) Initial Ballot Test: Parc el Tax (Q2)
NEED FOR RENOVATED & UPGRADED FACILITIES All voters were next queried
about the District’s need for additional money. Overall, 39% of voters perceived that the District
has a great need for additional money, and a similar percentage (36%) felt that the District’s need
for additional money was moderate (see Figure 11). Approximately 15% perceived that the Dis-
trict has little (8%) or no need (7%) for additional money, whereas 10% were unsure or unwilling
to answer the question. When compared to their respective counterparts, voters who currently
have children attending a District school, those with a family connection to a career in education,
voters who have lived in the District less than 10 years, and those who were definitely supportive
of the revenue measure at the Initial Ballot Test were the most likely to rate the District’s need
for additional money as great (see Figures 12 & 13).
Great
Little
38.9
8.0
Mo derate
36.4
FIGURE 12 DISTRICT’S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY BY DISTRICT CHILD IN HSLD, FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYED IN
EDUCATION & YEARS IN CLAREMONT AREA
100
% Resp ondents Who Provided Opinion
90
80
Moderate
70 34 .5
37.1 43.8 4 1.3
50.6 42.1
60 44.1 43.8 39.2
4 1.1
50
40
30 Great
56 .6 50.2 46.0 4 6.1
20 3 7.3 37.3 37.5 42.3 42.0
36.7
10
0
C urre nt Past Future N ev er Yes No Le ss than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more
D istric t C hild in Hsld (QD3,4,5) Family Member Employ ed in Years in Clare mo nt Area (QD1)
Educ ation (QD6)
90
Moderate 29.9
80
35.8
70 51.8
49.0
60
50
59.5
40
Great 36.5 68.9
30 60.7 40.4
62.3
20 42.0 43.4
10 17.7
15.3 12.4
0 0.0
De finitely y es Probably y es Probably no Definitely no Definitely y es Probably y es Probably no Definitely no
Initial Ballot Test: Bond (Q2) Initial Ballot T est: Parc el Tax (Q2)
After reading each service or project that may be funded by the measure, respondents were
asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assum-
ing that the measure passes. Truncated descriptions of the improvements tested, as well as vot-
ers’ responses, are shown in Figure 14 for the bond, Figure 15 for the parcel tax.3
Question 7: Both Versions The measure we've been discussing could fund a variety of
improvements to local schools. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of
the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
Remove hazardous materials from school sites like lead and asbestos 58.6 21 .7
Repair or replace roofs, plumbing, lighting, and elec tric al systems 44.7 31.9
Upgrade library technology, Internet acc ess and research tools 41.5 34.4
Install solar panels, make other energy -efficiency improv ements 45.8 28.3
Make energy-efficient imp rovements and refinance Distric t debt 47.9 25.2
Retrofit classrooms for special purposes such as art , music, language 44.2 24.3
Renov ate or replace outd ated classrooms and sc hool buildings 32.0 33.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Bond Version
3. For the full text of the items tested, turn to Question 7 in Questionnaires & Toplines on page 47
Provide adv anc ed ac ademic programs in math, science, and technology 69.8 20 .2
Continue funding for physical education and athletic programs 49.7 33.6
Av oid teac her lay-offs due t o St ate budg et cut s 57.3 21.7
Maintain tutors and aides for one-on-one inst ruc tion 35.5 33.5
Prev ent furlough days for teachers and other staff 35.4 26.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Parc el Tax Version
For the parcel tax, the item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents was pro-
viding advanced programs in math, science and technology (90% strongly or somewhat favor),
followed by attracting and retaining the best qualified teachers (89%), keeping school libraries
open (88%), and maintaining school safety and security personnel (87%).
ITEM RATINGS BY SUBGROUP Table 3 presents the top five bond projects (showing the
percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test. Table 4
provides the same information for the parcel tax. Not surprisingly, individuals who initially
TABLE 3 TOP PROGRAMS & PROJECTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
Position at
Initial Ballot % Strongly
Test (Q2) Item Pro ject o r Pr ogram Su mmary Favo r
BQ7e Re move haza rdous materials from school sites like lead and asbestos 77
Probably or BQ7j M ake energy-efficient improvements and refina nce District debt 67
Definitely Yes BQ7l Install solar panels, make other energy-efficiency improvements 63
(n = 177) BQ7g Upgrade a nd improv e school libraries 62
BQ7m Retrofit classrooms for spe cial purposes such as art, music, language 61
BQ7e Re move haza rdous materials from school sites like lead and asbestos 29
Probably or BQ7d Repair or replace roofs, plumbing, lighting, a nd ele ctrical sy stems 25
Definitely No BQ7n Improving te chnology to cre ate science, engineering magnet school 23
(n = 99) BQ7c Upgrade safety, se curity sy stems 22
BQ7g Upgrade a nd improv e school libraries 20
BQ7e Re move haza rdous materials from school sites like lead and asbestos 48
BQ7j M ake energy-efficient improvements and refina nce District debt 33
N ot Sure
BQ7f Upgrade classroom computers and technology 33
(n = 24)
BQ7g Upgrade a nd improv e school libraries 30
BQ7l Install solar panels, make other energy-efficiency improvements 29
TABLE 4 TOP PROGRAMS & PROJECTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Position at
Initial Ballot % Strongly
Test (Q2) Item Pro ject o r Pr ogram Su mmary Favo r
P Q7a Attract, retain the best qualified teachers 88
Probably or PQ 7d P rovide adva nce d a cade mic programs in math, science, and technology 82
Definitely Yes PQ 7p Continue providing college prep programs 81
(n = 194) PQ7c M aintain small class sizes 74
PQ 7g Continue funding for a rt and music programs 71
PQ 7d P rovide adva nce d a cade mic programs in math, science, and technology 46
Probably or P Q7a Attract, retain the best qualified teachers 43
Definitely No PQ 7p Continue providing college prep programs 35
(n = 89) PQ 7n Keep school libraries open 35
P Q7e K eep textbooks and instructional materials up-to-date 34
PQ 7g Continue funding for a rt and music programs 74
PQ 7p Continue providing college prep programs 74
N ot Sure
PQ 7n Keep school libraries open 69
(n = 13)
PQ7l K eep school facilities clean and we ll maintained 67
P Q7a Attract, retain the best qualified teachers 67
Question 8: Both Versions What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying
about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think
this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the
measure?
Good schools help protec t and improve local property values 48.6 31.2
Measure ensures educ ation, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 37.1 39.5
Claremont sc hools are among the best in the region 36.1 38.8
Dist rict may qualify for state grant s, matc hing funds, federal stimulus 31.2 4 2.1
This bond w ill free-up money to help save teachers’ jobs 35.5 36.0
The longer we w ait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 36.0 35.1
Many of the sc hool buildings and fac ilit ies are up to 50 years old 27 .9 40.4
Measure w ill improv e fac ilit ies at some schools for magnet programs 27.3 40.6
Measure w ill complete projec ts begun w it h sc hool measure 10 y rs ago 19.5 41.8
Measure will st rengthen local ec onomy, creat e good -pay ing jobs 17.3 39.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondent s: Bond Version
Figure 16 above presents the truncated positive arguments tested in the bond survey, as well as
voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from most convincing to least
convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either
a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this method-
ology, the most compelling positive argument was: Good schools help protect and improve local
property values (80%), followed by All money raised by the measure will stay in the District to
For the parcel tax survey (see Figure 17), the most compelling positive arguments were: Good
schools help protect and improve local property values (86%), If we want our kids to be prepared
to succeed in the new global economy, they need to have a high quality education—including
advanced courses in math, science and technology (86%), and All money raised by the measure
will stay in the District to support our children. It can not be taken away by the State or used for
other purposes (82%).
Good schools help protec t and improve local property values 53.5 32.9
Kids need high qualit y educ ation to succ eed in global economy 54.9 31.0
All money raised by t he measure w ill stay in the Distric t 58.9 22.6
Wit h smaller class sizes, measure provides individualized instruct ion 47.9 3 3.1
PQ8l PQ8h PQ8e PQ8i
Claremont sc hools are among the best in the region 44.2 35.9
State budget cuts are going to hurt the quality of our sc hools 45.6 34.2
Measure pro vides an exemption for property ow ners w ho are 65+ 48.8 30.1
Measure provides college prep, tec h t raining for job out of high sc hool 40.3 38.5
PQ8k PQ8d PQ8f PQ8c
No money from the measure w ill be used for administrators’ salaries 53.1 21.9
Measure w ill allow the Distric t to provide an early college program 26.5 32.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Parc el Tax Version
POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT For the interested reader, Tables 5 and
6 list the top five most convincing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents
who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test
for the bond and parcel tax surveys, respectively. The most striking pattern in the tables is that
the positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially
inclined to support the measure or were unsure when compared to voters who initially opposed
the measure. Nevertheless, all three groups ranked several of the same arguments as being
among the most compelling.
Position at
Initial Ballot % Very
Test (Q2) Item Pos itive Ar gument Sum mar y Convincing
BQ8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 72
Probably or BQ8h No mone y will be used for administrators’ salaries 64
Definitely Yes BQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 58
(n = 177) BQ8g M easure ensures education, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 53
BQ8j The longer w e wait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 51
BQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 34
Probably or BQ8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 26
Definitely No BQ8h No mone y will be used for administrators’ salaries 19
(n = 99) BQ8g M easure ensures education, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 14
BQ8l Mea sure will improve facilities at some schools for magnet programs 13
BQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 44
BQ8i Claremont schools are among the best in the region 34
N ot Sure
BQ8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 34
(n = 24)
BQ8e This bond will fre e-up money to help save teachers’ jobs 33
BQ8j The longer w e wait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 32
TABLE 6 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Position at
Initial Ballot % Very
Test (Q2) Item Pos itive Ar gument Sum mar y Convincing
P Q8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 76
Probably or PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 67
Definitely Yes PQ 8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 66
(n = 194) PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 64
P Q8e S tate budget cuts a re going to hurt the qua lity of our schools 62
PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 30
Probably or PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 30
Definitely No PQ 8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 28
(n = 89) PQ 8h Me asure provides a n e xemption for prope rty owners who are 65+ 27
P Q8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 26
P Q8f There w ill be a clear system of fisca l a ccountability 51
PQ 8h Me asure provides a n e xemption for prope rty owners who are 65+ 51
N ot Sure
PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 50
(n = 13)
PQ8j With smaller cla ss sizes, me asure provides individualized instruction 50
PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 46
Question 9: Bond Version In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-
dents; attract and retain quality teachers; and qualify for millions in State matching money,
shall the Claremont Unified School District repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating class-
rooms and school buildings; improve fire, safety and security systems; remove hazardous mate-
rials like lead and asbestos; and upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and
instructional technology by issuing 145 million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates, with man-
datory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were
held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 9: Parcel Tax Version In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the
impact of State budget cuts at our local schools; attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-
selors and school security personnel; maintain small class sizes; and continue funding advanced
academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement
shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139 per parcel
for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all funds staying local to
benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
100
5.7 5.4
90 Not sure
22.4 21.0
80
70 5.9 Definite ly no
9.2
% Respondents
60
22.2
50 22.7 Probably no
40
30 Probably yes
45.5
20 40.0
10 Definite ly yes
0
Bond Parcel Tax
Question 10: Both Versions Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are say-
ing.Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat con-
vincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 39.5 28.9
Raising taxes during a recession w ill hurt the economy ev en more 27.3 26.8
Distric t needs to live w ithin its means, just like everyone else 27.3 26.8
More t han 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the Distric t 27.7 23.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Bond Version
In general, the negative arguments resonated with fewer respondents than did the positive argu-
ments. Among the negative arguments tested in the bond survey, the three most compelling
were: People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy-
ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (68%), followed by
The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money
raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised (61%), and Experts say that
raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more (54%).
Among the negative arguments tested in the parcel tax survey, the three most compelling were:
People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment,
and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (64%), followed by The
District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money raised
during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised (59%), and The District needs to
live within its means—just like everyone else. If they cut waste, they would not have to raise
taxes (57%).
With ec onomic crisis, now is NOT t he time to raise taxes 34.9 29.5
Distric t needs to live w ithin its means, just like ev eryone else 29.6 27.6
More t han 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the District 29.2 27.2
Raising taxes during a recession w ill hurt the ec onomy ev en more 26.3 24.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Parc el Tax Version
Position at
Initial Ballot % Very
Test (Q2) Item Neg ative Arg umen t Summ ary Con vincin g
BQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 21
Probably or BQ 10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 16
Definitely Yes BQ 10f Teachers not willing to ta ke furlough days 15
(n = 177) BQ10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 14
BQ 10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 20
BQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 70
Probably or BQ10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 50
Definitely No BQ 10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 49
(n = 99) BQ10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 45
BQ 10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 40
BQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 51
BQ10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 41
N ot Sure
BQ10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 37
(n = 24)
BQ 10f Teachers not willing to ta ke furlough days 35
BQ 10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 31
Position at
Initial Ballot % Very
Test (Q2) Item Neg ative Arg umen t Summ ary Con vincin g
PQ10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 17
Probably or PQ 10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 17
Definitely Yes PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 16
(n = 194) PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 14
PQ 10f Teachers not willing to ta ke furlough days 14
PQ 10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 69
Probably or PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 62
Definitely No PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 61
(n = 89) PQ10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 54
P Q10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 52
PQ 10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 72
P Q10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 67
N ot Sure
PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 40
(n = 13)
PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 40
PQ10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 35
Question 11: Bond Version In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-
dents; attract and retain quality teachers; and qualify for millions in State matching money,
shall the Claremont Unified School District repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating class-
rooms and school buildings; improve fire, safety and security systems; remove hazardous mate-
rials like lead and asbestos; and upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and
instructional technology by issuing 145 million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates, with man-
datory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were
held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 11: Parcel Tax Version In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the
impact of State budget cuts at our local schools; attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-
selors and school security personnel; maintain small class sizes; and continue funding advanced
academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement
shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139 per parcel
for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all funds staying local to
benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
100
5.2 4.7
Refused
90
23.3 22.5
80
Not sure
70 8.5
11.7
% Respondents
60 Definitely no
20.1
50 21.7
40 Probably no
30
Probably yes
43.8
20 38.1
10 Definitely yes
0
Bond Parcel Tax
Whereas Tables 11 and 12 display change in support for the measure over the course of the
interview at the group level, Tables 13 and 14 display the individual-level changes that occurred
between the Initial and Final Ballot Tests for the respective measures. On the left side of the
tables is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of
respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the tables depict movement within each
To ease interpretation of the tables, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining
support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move-
ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from
yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.
TABLE 14 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ-
uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative
in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Tables 13 and 14 make clear that
although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all
respondents. Some respondents found the information conveyed during the course of the inter-
view to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a similar percentage
found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive.
Despite 19% of respondents making a fundamental4 shift in their opinion about the bond mea-
sure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the bond measure at the
Final Ballot Test (60%) was just over 1% higher than support at the Initial Ballot Test. Similarly,
although 12% of respondents made a fundamental shift in their opinion about the parcel tax
4. That is, they changed from a position of support, opposition or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ-
ent position at the Final Ballot Test.
Figure 22 displays the responses to this question and also includes those respondents who pre-
viously indicated they would support the measure at $139 (and thus did not receive this ques-
tion). An additional 4% of voters indicated they would support the measure at the lower rate,
which brings the overall support for the measure at $96 per parcel to approximately 68% at this
point in the survey.
Question 12: Parcel Tax Version How about if instead of $139 per parcel, the tax were $99
per parcel. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
No t sure Refused
4.3 0.4
De finitely no
21.5
Suppo rted
measure
Pro bably no at $139 (Q11)
5.6 63.9
Pro bab ly yes
2.6
Definitely yes
1.8
Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For
example, only respondents who opposed the measure (or were undecided) at the Initial Ballot
Test (Question 2) were asked a follow-up question (Question 3) regarding the reason they did not
support the measure. The questionnaires included with this report (see Questionnaires &
Toplines on page 47) identify the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure
that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI
(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist the live interviewers when
conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip pat-
terns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of
keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The integrity of the question-
naire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the District
prior to formally beginning the survey.
SPLIT-SAMPLE METHOD The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered ran-
dom sample of registered voters in the Claremont Unified School District who are likely to partic-
ipate in the November 2010 election under natural (normal) and high turnout (enhanced)
scenarios. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters,
each representing a particular combination of age, gender, household party-type, and voting
propensity. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate
cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate in the
study, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.
One of the key objectives of the study was to determine how support for a local revenue measure
may vary depending on the type of financial mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obliga-
tion bond. To reliably estimate support for both types of measures, a split-sample methodology
was employed such that 300 respondents received questions pertaining to a parcel tax, and 300
respondents received questions pertaining to a bond. All 600 respondents received generic
questions that applied to both types of measures.
The split-sample approach is used because it is the most reliable method of estimating voter
support for alternative tax measures. Prior research (and actual election results) have consis-
tently shown that attempting to estimate support for multiple tax measures (e.g., parcel tax and
Voters were assigned to a particular version of the survey (parcel tax or bond) on a random
basis, thus ensuring that both alternatives had a representative sample of likely November 2010
voters and that the survey results would indicate the level of support in the community for each
alternative. It is important to keep in mind that should the Board choose to place a measure on
the ballot, voters will have the opportunity to support or oppose a particular measure. They will
not be provided the option of choosing their preferred option (e.g., parcel tax or bond). The sur-
vey methodology was appropriately structured to simulate this type of scenario. Moreover, allow-
ing respondents to choose which version of the survey they preferred to take (rather than
assigning individuals to a version on a random basis) is a form of methodological error known as
selecting on the dependent variable. It would have biased the samples and led to a gross overes-
timation of support for each version.5 Accordingly, voters were randomly assigned to one ver-
sion or the other.
For example, in estimating the percentage of likely voters that would definitely support the par-
cel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 2 in the survey), the margin of error can be
calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a confidence level, and
the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the mar-
gin of error, in this case, is shown below.
N – n p̂ ( 1 – p̂ )
p̂ ± t ⎛ -------------⎞ --------------------
⎝ N ⎠ n–1
Where p̂ is the proportion of voters who said definitely yes (0.43 for 43% in this example), N is
the population size of likely voters (13,707), n is the sample size that received the question
(300) and t is the upper α ⁄ 2 point for the t-distribution with n – 1 degrees of freedom (1.96
for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error
of ± 5.5%. This means that with 43% of survey respondents indicating they would definitely sup-
5. To illustrate this point, imagine that 50% of likely voters in Claremont preferred the parcel tax, and 50% pre-
ferred the bond. If respondents were allowed to choose which version of the questionnaire they preferred
based on their preference for a parcel tax or bond, the samples for each version would consist solely of sup-
porters and the results would yield 100% support for a parcel tax and a bond—which obviously does not
accurately reflect actual opinions in the community.
Figure 23 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum
margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split
such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this study,
the maximum margin of error is ± 5.6% for questions asked only of respondents in a particular
subsample (parcel tax or bond version). For questions asked of all 600 respondents, the maxi-
mum margin of error is ± 3.9%.
14 %
12 %
10 %
Margin of E rror
8%
6% S ample o f 60 0
Co mbined Samples
Sample o f 300 ± 3. 9%
4% Vo t ers per Ve rsio n
± 5 . 6%
2%
0%
0 10 0 2 00 3 00 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 800 90 0 10 00
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by sub-
groups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 23 is thus useful for understanding
how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ-
uals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows
exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing
and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
DATA COLLECTION The method of data collection was telephone interviewing. Interviews
were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM)
between April 23 and May 4, 2010. It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays
because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the
sample. The interviews averaged 16 minutes in length.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num-
ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a
decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to
small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given
question.
Claremont USD
Bond Survey
Final Toplines
May 2010
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate
instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by
this particular individual.
If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey,
politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely
associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.
Important
Important
Important
Not at all
Not sure
Refused
Very
Randomize
Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school measure I just
Q3
described?
If you heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per
Q4 100,000 (one hundred thousand) dollars of assessed valuation, would you vote yes or
no on the school bond measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or
probably (yes/no)?
If needed: The assessed value of your home is listed on your property tax bill.
Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.
If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts and
go to Section 5.
Definitely
Definitely
Probably
Probably
Not sure
Refused
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ask in Order
Q5 In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in the Claremont
Unified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
1 Excellent 36%
2 Good 42%
3 Fair 8%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very Poor 2%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Refused 0%
Q6 How would you rate the school district’s need for additional money? Would you say it
has a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?
No Opinion
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
Strongly
Refused
Oppose
Oppose
Favor
Favor
Randomize
What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve
been discussing.
Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat
Q8
convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure?
Don’t Believe
Convincing
Convincing
Convincing
Somewhat
Not At All
Know/No
Refused
Opinion
Don’t
Very
Randomize
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.
Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat
Q10
convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
Don’t Believe
Convincing
Convincing
Convincing
Somewhat
Not At All
Know/No
Refused
Opinion
Don’t
Very
Randomize
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one
more time:
In order to:
x Provide safe and modern school facilities for all students
x Attract and retain quality teachers
x And qualify for millions in State matching money
Shall the Claremont Unified School District
x Repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildings
Q11 x Improve fire, safety and security systems
x Remove hazardous materials like lead and asbestos
x And upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and instructional technology
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer,
then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 38%
2 Probably yes 22%
3 Probably no 12%
4 Definitely no 23%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Refused 0%
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for
statistical purposes.
S1 Gender
How many school-aged children under the age of 19 do you have living in
D2
1 household?
Male 46%
2 Female 54%
0 None 71% Skip
S2 Party
1 One 15% Ask
1 Democrat
2 Two 47% 11% Ask
2 Republican 35%
3 Three or more 4% Ask
3 Other 4%
4 99
DTS Refused 15% 0% Skip
S3 Age on Do
Voterone
File or more of the children in your household attend a school in the C
D3
Unified School District?
1 18 to 29 10%
2 1 39
30 to Yes 5% 83% Skip
3 2 49
40 to No 18% 17% Ask
4 50 to 64 33%
98 Not sure 0% Skip
5 65 or older 28%
99 Not99 Refused
Coded 6% 0% Skip
S4 Do you
Registration Datehave grown children who previously attended a school in the Clar
D4
School District when they were younger?
1 2010 to 2005 30%
2 1 to 2001
2004 Yes 22% 56% Skip
3 2 to 1997
2000 No 16% 44% Ask
4 1996 to 1990 12%
99 Refused 0% Skip
5 Before 1990 21%
Do you have, or expect to have, children who will attend a school in the C
D5
Unified School District in the future?
1 Yes 20%
2 No 78%
99 Refused 2%
Are you or any member of your family currently employed by a local scho
D6
or retired from a career in education?
1 Yes 46%
2 No 53%
True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 10
99 Refused 0%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participa
1 Yes 77%
2 No 23%
1 Yes 22%
2 No 78%
1 Yes 63%
2 No 37%
1 Yes 84%
2 No 16%
1 Yes 45%
2 No 55%
Claremont USD
Parcel Tax Survey
Final Toplines
May 2010
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate
instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by
this particular individual.
If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey,
politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely
associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.
Important
Important
Important
Not at all
Not sure
Refused
Very
Randomize
Protect the quality of education and reduce the impact of State budget cuts at
our local schools
Attract and retain high quality teachers, counselors and school security
personnel
Maintain small class sizes
Q2 And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science, technology
and arts that enhance student achievement
Shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139
per parcel for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all
funds staying local to benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you
vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no)
or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 43% Skip to Q4
2 Probably yes 22% Skip to Q4
3 Probably no 9% Ask Q3
4 Definitely no 21% Ask Q3
98 Not sure 4% Ask Q3
99 Refused 0% Skip to Q4
Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school measure I just
Q3
described?
Definitely
Definitely
Probably
Probably
Not sure
Refused
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ask in Order
In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in the Claremont
Q5 Unified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
1 Excellent 41%
2 Good 36%
3 Fair 9%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very Poor 0%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Refused 1%
How would you rate the school district’s need for additional money? Would you say it
Q6 has a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?
No Opinion
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
Strongly
Refused
Oppose
Oppose
Favor
Favor
Randomize
What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve
been discussing.
Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat
Q8
convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure?
Don’t Believe
Convincing
Convincing
Convincing
Somewhat
Not At All
Know/No
Refused
Opinion
Don’t
Very
Randomize
Protect the quality of education and reduce the impact of State budget cuts at
our local schools
Attract and retain high quality teachers, counselors and school security
personnel
Maintain small class sizes
And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science,
Q9
technology and arts that enhance student achievement
Shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139
per parcel for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all
funds staying local to benefit our schools?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer,
then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 45%
2 Probably yes 22%
3 Probably no 6%
4 Definitely no 21%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Refused 0%
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one
more time:
In order to:
Protect the quality of education and reduce the impact of State budget cuts at
our local schools
Attract and retain high quality teachers, counselors and school security
personnel
Maintain small class sizes
And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science,
Q11
technology and arts that enhance student achievement
Shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139
per parcel for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all
funds staying local to benefit our schools?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer,
then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 44% Skip to D1
2 Probably yes 20% Skip to D1
3 Probably no 9% Ask Q12
4 Definitely no 23% Ask Q12
98 Not sure 5% Ask Q12
99 Refused 0% Ask Q12
How about if instead of $139 per parcel, the tax were $99 per parcel. Would you vote
Q12 yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or
probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 5%
2 Probably yes 7%
3 Probably no 16%
4 Definitely no 60%
98 Not sure 12%
99 Refused 1%
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for
statistical purposes.
How many school-aged children under the age of 19 do you have living in your
D2
household?
Do one or more of the children in your household attend a school in the Claremont
D3
Unified School District?
Do you have grown children who previously attended a school in the Claremont Unified
D4
School District when they were younger?
Do you have, or expect to have, children who will attend a school in the Claremont
D5
Unified School District in the future?
1 Yes 26%
2 No 70%
99 Refused 4%
Are you or any member of your family currently employed by a local school or college,
D6
or retired from a career in education?
1 Yes 43%
2 No 55%
99 Refused 2%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this
important survey.
S1 Gender
1 Male 45%
2 Female 55%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 50%
2 Republican 32%
3 Other 5%
4 DTS 13%
1 18 to 29 7%
2 30 to 39 9%
3 40 to 49 18%
4 50 to 64 33%
5 65 or older 29%
99 Not Coded 4%
S4 Registration Date
1 Yes 75%
2 No 25%
1 Yes 27%
2 No 73%
1 Yes 62%
2 No 38%
1 Yes 83%
2 No 17%
1 Yes 46%
2 No 54%