Search

In Indiana and Minnesota the state education agency, state higher education agency, and the state workforce agency have collaborated to develop career and technical education courses intended to improve high school students' college and career readiness. These agencies partnered with the Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest to examine whether high school graduates in each state who completed a large number of career and technical education courses in a single career-oriented program of study (concentrators) had different college and workforce outcomes from graduates who completed fewer (samplers) or no career and technical education courses (nonparticipants). The study found that in the 2012/13-2017/18 graduation cohorts, male graduates were more likely to be concentrators than female graduates, and graduates who received special education services were more likely to be concentrators than those who did not receive services. Graduates who were not proficient in reading in grade 8 also were more likely to become concentrators than those who were proficient. Graduates who attended urban and suburban schools were more likely than students who attended town and rural schools to be nonparticipants. Concentrators were less likely than samplers and nonparticipants with similar characteristics to enroll in college, but the differences reflect mainly enrollment in four-year colleges. Concentrators were more likely to enroll in two-year colleges. Concentrators also were less likely than similar samplers and nonparticipants to complete a bachelor's degree within four to six years. Finally, compared with similar samplers and nonparticipants, concentrators were employed at higher rates in the first five years after high school and had higher earnings. [For the study brief, see ED613045; for the study snapshot, see ED613046; and for the appendixes, see ED613050.]

Leaders at the Indiana Commission for Higher Education and the Indiana Department of Education are concerned about teacher shortages and want a better understanding of the teacher pipeline for the state's K-12 public schools. This study tracked 11,080 students who first enrolled in an Indiana public college or university in 2010/11, 2011/12, or 2012/13 and pursued a bachelor's degree in education at any point in college. Among those entrants 41 percent completed a bachelor's degree in education by 2017/18. Of those degree completers 55 percent earned an initial instructional license, and of those licensed, 69 percent entered teaching in an Indiana public school. Compared with the initial group of students entering education programs, students who completed a bachelor's degree, those who earned an initial instructional license, and those who entered teaching in an Indiana public school were less likely to be from a racial/ethnic minority group or to have been eligible for the national school lunch program in high school. Students who entered an education program in their third year of college or later were less likely to complete a bachelor's degree in education than students who entered in their first year, after other differences in student characteristics and the characteristics of the first college they attended were adjusted for. Students who received an Indiana 21st Century Scholarship in their first year of college or who received financial aid beyond their first year were more likely to complete a bachelor's degree in education, while students who received a Pell Grant were less likely. Finally, students who started at a two-year college and transferred to a four-year college were more likely to complete a bachelor's degree in education than students who started at a four-year college. [For the study brief, see ED610910; for the study snapshot, see ED610911; and for the appendixes, see ED610912.]

State and school district leaders in Michigan are concerned about the challenges some districts are facing in filling certain classroom teacher vacancies and about the harmful impact of teacher shortages on students, schools, and communities. They have asked for better and more comprehensive information on the existence and extent of teacher shortages in the state. Using data from the 2013/14-2017/18 school years, this study examined trends in teacher demand, supply, and shortages in Michigan and projects shortages and surpluses for 2018/19-2022/23. The study found that total enrollment in Michigan public schools declined by 3 percent between 2013/14 and 2017/18, while enrollment of English learner students increased by 27 percent. Over the same period the size of the teacher workforce, measured in full time equivalent teachers, declined by 2 percent, and the number of newly certified active teachers declined by 23 percent. Some subject areas (particularly business education and career and technical education) and regions of the state (Upper Peninsula and Northwest) are projected to see teacher shortages between 2018/19 and 2022/23. However, the total active teacher supply in Michigan public schools is projected to meet demand during this period. [For the appendixes, see ED597853; for the brief, see ED597854; and for the snapshot, see ED597855.]

Every year the U.S. Department of Education reports for each state in the country the grade levels, subject areas, and geographic areas that have experienced teacher shortages (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2015). A teacher shortage occurs when the number of teachers available in a specific grade, subject matter or discipline classification, or geographic area--teacher supply--is less than the number of teachers required in that grade, subject matter or discipline classification, or geographic area--teacher demand. States are required to report shortages to the U.S. Department of Education each year to qualify for federal programs that allow states to offer teachers incentives, such as loan deferment, loan cancelation, and scholarships, to teach in shortage areas. Some states, including Minnesota, require their state education agency to go beyond reporting teacher shortage areas to producing a detailed analysis of teacher staffing patterns (Lindsay, Wan, & Gossin-Wilson, 2009). By law the Minnesota Department of Education must conduct a multimethod teacher supply and demand study every two years (Minnesota Statute § 127A.05, subd. 6, 2015). The law requires the department to administer a biennial survey of school districts and a survey of teacher preparation institutions, report findings on patterns of shortages by subject area and region, and produce five-year projections of teacher demand by district. Between 2005 and 2011 the Minnesota Department of Education repeated the same teacher supply and demand study, administering similar surveys and performing similar analyses. Many education stakeholders in Minnesota called for a redesign of the study to change it from an unfocused compilation of summaries of data analyses to a report that answered explicit research questions. Minnesota members of the Midwest Educator Effectiveness Research Alliance partnered with a technical assistance team from Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest to redesign Minnesota's teacher supply and demand study to enhance its utility for stakeholders. A four-step process was followed in redesigning the study: (1) Identifying and refining research questions; (2) Identifying data sources and analytic methods to address each research question; (3) Collecting and preparing data for analysis; and (4) Analyzing data and reporting findings. This report describes the steps in more detail, emphasizing the methods for addressing each research question. Because many data elements used for the study are common across states, this report may help researchers in other states or school districts study teacher staffing patterns in their jurisdictions. An appendix presents the calculations for 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year forecasts of student enrollment by grade.

This brief examines the mobility of public school teachers and principals (including assistant principals) in Iowa and presents annual and five-year mobility rates between 2006/07 and 2010/11. An average of 6.7 percent of teachers changed schools between consecutive years, and 18.9 percent changed schools within a five-year span. Teachers were more likely to move to another school if they were male, had less teaching experience, were in an urban school, or taught in a school with lower academic performance, fewer students, or more economically disadvantaged students. For principals the annual mobility rate averaged 9.2 percent, and the five-year mobility rate was 27.5 percent. Principals were more likely to move to another school if they had less experience or were in a school with fewer students. [To access "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within and across Three Midwest Region States. REL 2017-185," see ED570453. For "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Minnesota. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-196," see ED570466. For "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Wisconsin. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-195," see ED570452.]

This brief examines the mobility of public school teachers and principals (including assistant principals) in Minnesota and presents annual and five-year mobility rates between 2006/07 and 2010/11. An average of 9.5 percent of teachers changed schools between consecutive years, and 20.8 percent changed schools within a five-year span. Teachers were more likely to move to another school if they had less teaching experience, were in an urban school, or taught in a school with lower academic performance, fewer students, or more economically disadvantaged students. For principals the annual mobility rate averaged 10.5 percent, and the five-year mobility rate was 29.3 percent. Principals were more likely to move to another school if they had less experience or were in a school with lower academic performance or with more economically disadvantaged students. Principals' years of experience, as well as the percentage of students in the school who were academically proficient and the percentage who were economically disadvantaged, predicted their annual and five-year mobility rates. [For "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within and across Three Midwest Region States. REL 2017-185," see ED570453. For "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Iowa. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-194," see ED570468. To access "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Wisconsin. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-195," see ED570452.]

Education leaders have expressed concern about educators' moving to different schools--within the same state or in another state--because these moves create costs for the home district and have potential impacts on the equitable distribution of effective educators among schools. However, many states do not routinely monitor mobility among educators. Such was the case in Minnesota in fall 2012, when Minnesota members of the Midwest Educator Effectiveness Research Alliance requested that Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest examine two issues: anecdotal evidence suggested that a substantial number of educators were leaving urban schools that serve low-income students to work in suburban schools that serve more affluent students and that a disproportionate number of teachers were leaving positions in Minnesota schools to take teaching positions in the neighboring states of Iowa and Wisconsin. In response to these concerns, REL Midwest conducted a study on the mobility of teachers and administrators in public schools within and between Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The study was supported by representatives of the state education agency in each state. This study is the first to examine educator mobility using the same methodology across these three states. The findings provide initial insights into the intrastate and interstate mobility of educators and whether educators are more likely to move away from certain types of schools (raising the issue of equitable distribution of educators), whether some states are losing substantial numbers of teachers to neighboring states, and whether states are obtaining substantial numbers of educators from neighboring states. Key findings include the following: (1) The average annual percentage of teachers and administrators moving to another school in the same state each year between 2006/07 and 2010/11 was 6.8 percent in Iowa, 9.3 percent in Minnesota, and 8.2 percent in Wisconsin; (2) The annual intrastate mobility rate for teachers ranged from 5.5 percent to 7.1 percent in Iowa, 8.4 percent to 9.8 percent in Minnesota, and 7.0 percent to 10.7 percent in Wisconsin between 2006/07 and 2010/11; (3) The percentage of educators working in one school in 2006/07 and another school in the same state in 2011/12 was 19.3 percent in Iowa, 21.0 percent in Minnesota, and 19.7 percent in Wisconsin; (4) The teacher mobility rate varied by subject area taught and across regions within states. Special education and foreign language teachers had the highest mobility rates in all three states; (5) Teachers were more likely to move to another school if they had less teaching experience, were in an urban school, or taught in a school with lower average academic performance, fewer students, or more economically disadvantaged students. The relationships between these characteristics and the mobility of principals were less consistent; and (6) Between 2005/06 and 2011/12 total exits and inflows of educators among these three states totaled less than 0.1 percent of the average educator workforce. The following are appended: (1) Data and methodology; and (2) Teacher and principal mobility across regions within the state. [To access "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Iowa. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-194," see ED570468. For "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Minnesota. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-196," see ED570466. For "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Wisconsin. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-195," see ED570452.]

This brief examines the mobility of public school teachers and principals (including assistant principals) in Wisconsin and presents annual and five-year mobility rates between 2006/07 and 2010/11. An average of 8.0 percent of teachers changed schools between consecutive years, and 19.4 percent changed schools within a five-year span. Teachers were more likely to move to another school if they had less teaching experience, were in an urban school, or taught in a school with lower academic performance, fewer students, or more economically disadvantaged students. For principals the annual mobility rate averaged 11.9 percent, and the five-year mobility rate was 30.0 percent. Principals were more likely to move to another school if they had less experience or were in an urban school or a school with lower academic performance. [To access "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within and across Three Midwest Region States. REL 2017-185," see ED570453. To access "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Iowa. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-194," see ED570468. To access "An Examination of the Movement of Educators within Minnesota. Stated Briefly. REL 2017-196," see ED570466.] ]

This report describes and explains how to use the School Survey of Practices Associated with High Performance, which measures the degree to which schools are engaging in practices associated with high performance. State education departments and school districts can use the survey results to identify and describe school practices associated with high performance, compare practices across school subgroups, target schools for specific interventions, and design interventions. The survey, designed to be taken by teachers and school administrators, measures practices in the domains of effective leadership, strong curriculum, professional development, school culture, and ongoing data use for school improvement. The survey has undergone psychometric validation. The report also includes the survey and describes its development and validation. The following are appended: (1) Surveys reviewed in developing the School Survey of Practices Associated with High Performance; (2) Cognitive interviews; (3) Related literature on schools that beat the odds; (4) Piloting and psychometric validation of the survey; (5) Calculating domain scores.

This brief summarizes the findings of a recent study that examined whether adding results from teacher and student feedback surveys to one district's principal evaluation system strengthened the link between principals' evaluation ratings and their schools' achievement gains in math and reading. The study also examined whether certain subscales from student and teacher surveys were better than others at improving the link between evaluation system ratings and schoolwide student achievement. The study found that adding the surveys to the district's principal evaluations strengthened the link between the evaluation ratings and schoolwide student achievement in math and in a math-reading composite but not in reading alone. [For the full report, see ED548024.]

This study examined whether adding student and teacher survey measures to existing principal evaluation measures increases the overall power of the principal evaluation model to explain variation in student achievement across schools. The study was conducted using data from 2011-12 on 39 elementary and secondary schools within a midsize urban school district in the Midwest. The research team used the results of the district's Tripod student and teacher surveys to construct six school-level measures of school conditions that prior research has shown to associate with effective school leadership. The study finds that adding the full set of six survey measures as a group results in statistically significant increases in variance explained in mathematics and composite value-added outcomes, but not in reading. A stepwise regression procedure identified two measures--instructional leadership and classroom instructional environment--as an optimal subset of the six measures. This evidence indicates that student and teacher survey measures can have utility for principal performance evaluation. The following are appended: (1) Literature Review; (2) Data and Methodology; (3) Supplemental Analysis; (4) Descriptive Statistics and Regression Coefficients for the Principal Evaluation Measures; and (5) Tripod Student Perception Survey.

Recent estimates suggest that of U.S. public high school freshmen in the fall of 2005 24.5 percent did not graduate on time in 2008/09 (Stillwell, Sable, and Plotts 2011). As states and school districts attempt to boost graduation rates, they face the challenge of identifying which students are at risk of not graduating on time. Early warning indicators based on measurable student outcomes and behaviors could help identify students at risk while there is still time to redirect their trajectory away from dropping out or falling behind. The current study focuses on the freshman on-track indicator developed by the Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR). The current study examined three research questions for two urban districts in the Midwest Region: (1) What were the freshman on-track and offtrack rates for recent cohorts, overall and by student background subgroup?; (2) How did four-year in-district graduation rates compare for on-track and off-track freshmen in recent cohorts, overall and by student background subgroup?; and (3) To what extent does the on-track indicator predict four-year graduation rates for recent cohorts in each district, after accounting for baseline student background characteristics? The main results of the study are the following: (1) For both districts, students who were on track at the end of grade 9 graduated on time at a higher rate than did students who were off track. This was the case both overall and for every student background subgroup examined in each district; (2) For both districts, the on-track indicator was a significant predictor of on-time high school graduation, even after controlling for student background characteristics and for student assessment test scores in grade 8. The odds of on-time graduation for students who were on track at the end of their freshman year was estimated to be 6.6 times that of students who had similar characteristics but were off track at the end of their freshman year for District A and 5.5 times for District B; and (3) For both districts, the effect size of being on track compared with being off track (as measured by increases in the odds of graduating) was larger than the effect size for every student background characteristic and for grade 8 assessment test scores. The pattern of results in this study is similar to that of prior studies (Allensworth and Easton 2005; Hartman et al. 2011), with some differences in overall on-track rates, on-track rates for particular student subgroups, and the degree to which the on-track indicator differentiates between graduates and nongraduates. (Contains 3 notes.) [For the full report, "Using the Freshman On-Track Indicator to Predict Graduation in Two Urban Districts in the Midwest Region. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 134," see ED531421.]

This report presents statistical profiles for the Midwest Region states of school districts designated as "in improvement" for school year 2009/10 under accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and compares the prevalence and characteristics of these districts and those of districts not in improvement. It also reports the prevalence of districts in need of improvement under three states' own accountability systems. [For the full report, "Characteristics of Midwest Region School Districts Identified for Improvement. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 121," see ED532663.]

This study examines differences in spending in school districts across geographic locales in Minnesota and factors that might contribute to these differences. The study finds that district spending per student in 2008/09 varied across locale types in Minnesota. These differences are largely accounted for by differences in regional characteristics and level of student need. (Contains 1 note.) [For the full report, "Differences in Spending in School Districts across Geographic Locales in Minnesota. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 124," see ED532664.]

According to the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, Title I schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years are required to develop or revise school improvement plans aimed at boosting student achievement. Schools must submit the plans, which describe proposed activities, including parent involvement and extended learning activities (a before-school, afterschool, or summer program), to the local education agency for approval. To determine the extent to which such plans included parent involvement activities and extended learning programs, Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest conducted a content analysis of school improvement plans for schools identified for improvement based on 2007/08 assessment data. This study adopted the methodology of a similar study of school improvement plans in the Northwest Region (Speth, Saifer, and Forehand 2008). Neither this study nor the Northwest Region study assess the effectiveness of particular activities. This study reviewed school improvement plans in five states in the Midwest Region: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The report's findings include the following: (1) About 90 percent of the school improvement plans included plans to notify parents of the school's improvement status, parents' rights, or both; 57 percent reported having involved parents in developing or approving the plans; and 91 percent included at least one potentially effective parent involvement activity, as required under NCLB section 1116. About half (49 percent) of the plans met all three section 1116 requirements; another 41 percent satisfied two of the three requirements; (2) Very few plans (15 percent) included activities that involved parents in decision-making, but 43 percent of plans included advisory activities for parents. Other activities included developing parent compacts (35 percent); identifying budgetary resources for parent involvement (35 percent); providing assistance to parents in understanding state standards, monitoring their child's progress, or working with educators to improve the student's achievement (32 percent); and educating teachers and staff on the value of parents' contributions (23 percent); (3) Across all five states, about half the schools (49 percent) whose plans were reviewed served English language learner students. Among them, 53 percent reported presenting information to parents in a language other than English; and (4) About 70 percent of school improvement plans included at least one extended learning activity. Just 5 percent of before-school, 20 percent of afterschool, and 5 percent of summer school programs offered tutoring or other academic supports for struggling learners. Appendices include: (1) Study methodology; (2) Checklist for review of parent involvement and extended learning activities in school improvement plans in participating Midwest Region states; (3) Crosswalk between codes and research questions; (4) School-level alignment with requirements of No Child Left Behind section 1116; and (5) Results of bias analysis. (Contains 2 boxes and 22 tables.) [For summary report, "Parent Involvement and Extended Learning Activities in School Improvement Plans in the Midwest Region. Summary. Issues & Answers. REL 2011-No. 115," see ED518803.]

According to the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, Title I schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years are required to develop or revise school improvement plans aimed at boosting student achievement. Schools must submit the plans, which describe proposed activities, including parent involvement and extended learning activities (a before-school, afterschool, or summer program), to the local education agency for approval. To determine the extent to which such plans included parent involvement activities and extended learning programs, Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest conducted a content analysis of school improvement plans for schools identified for improvement based on 2007/08 assessment data. This study adopted the methodology of a similar study of school improvement plans in the Northwest Region (Speth, Saifer, and Forehand 2008). Neither this study nor the Northwest Region study assess the effectiveness of particular activities. This study reviewed school improvement plans in five states in the Midwest Region: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The report's findings include the following: (1) About 90 percent of the school improvement plans included plans to notify parents of the school's improvement status, parents' rights, or both; 57 percent reported having involved parents in developing or approving the plans; and 91 percent included at least one potentially effective parent involvement activity, as required under NCLB section 1116. About half (49 percent) of the plans met all three section 1116 requirements; another 41 percent satisfied two of the three requirements; (2) Very few plans (15 percent) included activities that involved parents in decision-making, but 43 percent of plans included advisory activities for parents. Other activities included developing parent compacts (35 percent); identifying budgetary resources for parent involvement (35 percent); providing assistance to parents in understanding state standards, monitoring their child's progress, or working with educators to improve the student's achievement (32 percent); and educating teachers and staff on the value of parents' contributions (23 percent); (3) Across all five states, about half the schools (49 percent) whose plans were reviewed served English language learner students. Among them, 53 percent reported presenting information to parents in a language other than English; and (4) About 70 percent of school improvement plans included at least one extended learning activity. Just 5 percent of before-school, 20 percent of afterschool, and 5 percent of summer school programs offered tutoring or other academic supports for struggling learners. [For the main report, "Parent Involvement and Extended Learning Activities in School Improvement Plans in the Midwest Region. Issues & Answers. REL 2011-No. 115," see ED518802.]

This report describes how state education agencies in the Midwest Region monitor teacher supply, demand, and shortage; details why they monitor these data; and offers estimates of the monetary costs incurred in performing such studies. This study responds to a request from state education agencies in the Midwest Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) to learn more about teacher supply and demand studies conducted in neighboring states. The study aimed to determine: (1) what motivates states to assess teacher supply and demand; (2) what methodologies do Midwest Region states employ to monitor teacher supply and demand; (3) what the costs are of various state approaches. The study found that state education agencies conduct teacher supply and demand studies to comply with federal laws and regulations, including provisions of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, federal regulations on loan deferment or forgiveness programs and scholarships, and Title II requirements of the Higher Education Act. Appended are: (1) Descriptions of codes of federal regulation and federal law related to teacher shortage areas; (2) The literature review for forecast models; (3) Interview questions; and (4) Data reported in most recent teacher supply and demand reports, by Midwest Region state. (Contains 2 boxes, 1 figure, 10 tables, and 11 notes.)