Voters become more polarized when presidential candidates take positions on issues in K-12 education

When Vice President Kamala Harris paid a visit to Florida in July 2023, she lambasted a state-approved Black history lesson that claimed “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

“Come on – adults know what slavery involved,” Harris said in Jacksonville. “How is it that anyone could suggest that in the midst of these atrocities, that there was any benefit to being subjected to this level of dehumanization?”

Donald Trump also delved into how race is dealt with in K-12 classrooms, but from a different angle. In January 2023, he called for eliminating federal funding for any school or program that pushes “critical race theory, gender ideology or other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto our children.” Critical race theory holds that racism is embedded in American society and law.

When U.S. presidents and presidential candidates inject themselves into K-12 education policy debates – as several have done over the course of the nation’s history – the results are often polarizing.

At least that’s what we found in our new study that examines the effects of presidents’ rhetoric on public education. We are researchers who study education politics and policy. We found that presidents are generally unable to persuade the public as a whole, but they are tremendously effective at sharpening divisions in public opinion along party lines.

There is, however, one key exception. When a president endorses a policy that is traditionally more popular with members of the other party, partisan polarization on that issue tends to lessen slightly. Also, public opinion as a whole tends to shift in the direction of the president’s position.

Education policy and presidential politics

There is no shortage of examples of presidents extolling the value of their respective education agendas.

For instance, at the signing ceremony of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which directed federal dollars to schools serving low-income students, Lyndon B. Johnson remarked, “I believe deeply no law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America.” More than 20 years later, on the campaign trail in 1988, George H.W. Bush declared: “I want to be the education president. I want to lead a renaissance of quality in our schools.” In 2011, while discussing the Race to the Top program, which incentivized states to adopt reforms such as common academic standards and charter schools, Barack Obama claimed that “this is probably the most significant education reform initiative that we’ve seen in a generation.”

Even though attention from the Oval Office can make it seem otherwise, the federal government plays a relatively small role in K-12 education policy. The vast majority of spending and decision-making happens at the state and local levels. In the 2020-21 school year, only about 11 cents of every dollar spent came from federal sources. This figure holds even after accounting for the first wave of federal money allocated during the COVID-19 pandemic to help schools reopen safely and effectively.

But K-12 education policy plays an outsized role in presidential politics. Occupants and aspiring occupants of the White House angle to present their visions for public education. They explain why their approach will lead the nation into a more prosperous future while their opponent will lead the country into disaster. They often deploy K-12 education policy as a medium for clarifying their own distinct political identities.

George W. Bush used his position on education reform – a more assertive role for the federal government and more emphasis on school accountability – as part of an effort to cast himself as a “compassionate conservative.” On his second day in office, Bush laid out those priorities by delivering an outline of a bill to Congress that would go on to become the landmark No Child Left Behind Act.

Obama’s support for charter schools, merit-based teacher compensation and annual testing allowed him to define himself as a Democrat who was less beholden to teachers unions.

Trump and Joe Biden have similarly wielded their education policy platforms to burnish their political brands. Trump established the 1776 Commission to promote “patriotic education” with less emphasis on the role of slavery in early American history or ongoing racial inequalities. Biden, in an attempt to distance himself from Obama’s reform agenda, told delegates of the nation’s largest teachers union, “You will never find in American history a president who is more teacher-centric or more supportive of teachers than me.”

Presidents and public opinion

We wanted to know how the public responds when presidents engage in the politics of education. To answer this question, we analyzed the results of 18 experiments embedded in the annual, nationally representative Education Next poll from 2009-2021. In each experiment, the survey randomly assigned some respondents to receive the president’s position on a specific education policy before asking all respondents to indicate their support or opposition to that policy.

When we aggregated all 18 experiments, the average effect of a presidential policy endorsement on public opinion was zero. For the public as a whole, information about presidents’ positions on K-12 education policy appeared not to make a difference one way or another. However, when members of the president’s own party learned about the president’s position, they became more supportive of that approach by about nearly half a point on a five-point scale. Conversely, when members of the other party received the same information, their opposition intensified by about the same amount.

There was one key exception to this polarizing pattern. When presidents adopted a position that was more popular among members of the other party – such as when Obama endorsed charter schools, which have traditionally been more popular among Republicans – it helped close the partisan gap. Specifically, the result was a small but nontrivial reduction in the average difference between Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on that issue. In addition, such signals also tended to increase the public’s overall support for the president’s position. Presidents could reduce partisan polarization and move public opinion, but only when they took a stand that was politically surprising.

On the campaign trail

When presidential candidates advocate for positions typically associated with their own party – for example, when Trump argued that teachers ought to be allowed to carry concealed weapons or when Biden opposed policies that prohibit transgender students from using a bathroom aligned with their gender identity – Americans use those comments to learn what Democrats and Republicans generally believe. In some cases, people update theirown beliefs accordingly. In our contemporary political context, presidential engagement largely serves to reinforce partisan divisions.

But pay close attention when a candidate breaks from the party line. Those are the moments when presidential influence could shift the debate in a new direction.

For example, Trump has emphasized his support for historically black colleges and universities, which have not typically been a priority for Republican presidents. In the first few days of her presidential campaign, Harris has hewed closely to traditional Democratic Party priorities regarding education: increasing teachers’ salaries and forgiving student loan debt.

As the 2024 election draws near, we will be watching to see if the candidates double down on their parties’ education platforms or if they adopt new positions that scramble the party lines and reshape the public debate.

David M. Houston has received funding from the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance, where he is the survey director of the Education Next poll.

Alyssa Barone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.