Search

Using British Columbia Ministry of Education administrative school data within the Education and Labour Market Longitudinal Platform, this study compared the proportions of high school graduates among Grade 12 students with and without special needs across nine cohorts from 2010/2011 to 2018/2019 before and after controlling for several sociodemographic characteristics. Two major strengths of this study were the use of longitudinal administrative education data integrated with income tax data from the T1 Family File and the further disaggregation of the special education needs categorization. Students with special needs in all different categories (excluding those with gifted status) were less likely to have graduated across all nine cohorts compared with students without special needs, even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and academic achievement, suggesting that students with special needs may face other types of barriers in completing high school. Yet there was diversity among students with special needs, with the highest proportions of graduation among students with learning disabilities or those with sensory needs and the lowest among students with intellectual disabilities. A larger share of females than males graduated high school among students without special needs. However, sex differences were less consistent among students with special needs status (including students with gifted status). As expected, the proportions of graduation were significantly higher at age 19 compared with at age 18 or younger, with the differences being slightly higher among students with special needs (excluding those with gifted status; 5 to 10 percentage points) compared with those without special needs (3 to 7 percentage points). The largest age differences were observed among students with autism spectrum disorder, behavioural needs or mental illness, and those with physical needs across all nine cohorts.

The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) was the largest onetime federal investment in K-12 schools in history, funneling almost $200 billion to states and school districts. We use novel data from Washington State to investigate the extent to which ESSER funding causally influenced spending on school personnel. We argue one cannot infer this directly from ESSER claims data because of the fungibility of school budgets. Thus, we rely on a more direct signal of district hiring decisions: public education job postings scraped from district hiring websites. To address endogeneity concerns, our preferred approach employs an instrumental variables strategy that exploits a formula mechanism used to determine Title I funding for 2020-21 (and thus ESSER allocations in 2022) based on the number of Title I formula-eligible children. We find strong, arguably causal, evidence that public school hiring increased in response to the availability of ESSER funding. Specifically, we estimate that each $1,000 in ESSER allocations caused districts to seek to hire $206 in additional staff, disproportionately teachers. These estimates suggest that roughly 12,000 new staff (including 5,100 teachers) were hired in Washington because of ESSER. In the absence of new funding, school staffing budgets will likely need to contract substantially following the sunset of ESSER.

Departmentalized instruction, in which teachers specialize in one or more core subjects and instruct multiple groups of students in a day, has become increasingly prominent in elementary schools. Using 8 years of data from Massachusetts and a difference-in-differences design, we estimate the effects of departmentalization on student achievement. We find that departmentalization has positive effects in English language arts (ELA) and science and mixed evidence of positive effects in math. These positive effects are not driven by teacher productivity improvements: Consistent with prior findings on teacher specialization, teachers are less effective when specializing in math and no more effective in ELA than when teaching self-contained classrooms. Rather, consistent with the theoretical underpinnings for specialization, departmentalized schools tend to assign teachers to their stronger subjects.

Who ends up in the teacher workforce is greatly influenced by who is admitted into teacher education programs (TEPs). To better understand how the preferences of teacher education faculty might shape admissions of STEM teacher candidates, we surveyed faculty who teach content or methods courses to STEM teacher candidates across five universities. Faculty reported that they most value information collected from individual interviews with applicants and data on the number of STEM courses taken in college and their performance in these courses, and least value data on university admissions tests, high school GPA, and teacher licensure test scores. When we investigate faculty members' revealed preferences through a conjoint analysis, we find that faculty most value applicants who have worked with students from diverse backgrounds and applicants from a marginalized racial or ethnic community, and least value whether they received high grades in math and/or science courses. Finally, we find significant variation in these perceptions across respondents in different faculty roles, who teach different courses, and from different institutions: for example, Arts and Sciences faculty tend to value TEP applicants' performance in college STEM courses relatively more than STEM education faculty, while STEM education faculty tend to value applicants' race and ethnicity relatively more than Arts and Sciences faculty.

Correctional education is a prevalent form of rehabilitation programming for prisoners in the United States. There is limited evidence, however, about the labor market returns to credentials received while incarcerated. Using incarceration, educational, and labor market data in Washington State, we study the labor market returns to GEDs and short-term vocational certificates earned in prison. We identify the returns to credentials by a difference-indifferences design that compares changes in earnings and employment for incarcerated persons who earn a credential to those who enroll in a program but fail to complete a GED or certificate. We estimate that GEDs increase post-incarceration earnings by about $450 per quarter and that vocational certificates increase earnings by about $250 per quarter. Degree completers have higher hourly wages, are more likely to be employed, and work more hours following release. For vocational programs, earnings increases are driven by certificates in construction and manufacturing. [The research presented presented in this report uses confidential data from the Education Research and Data Center (ERDC) located within the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM).]

Graduates of special education teacher education programs can teach in a range of special education settings, raising the potential that their training can occur in very different settings than where they find their first jobs. We follow 263 completers of Moderate Disabilities programs in Massachusetts from their field placements to their early-career teaching positions and study the characteristics of their field placements and the degree to which these are aligned with their early-career teaching positions. We also assess the degree to which alignment is associated with early-career teacher turnover. We found that many of these teachers student-taught in an inclusive setting but were hired into a self-contained special education setting and vice versa, and teachers who experienced this misalignment were more likely to leave the workforce early in their careers. Teachers who student taught with a supervising practitioner without a special education license were also more likely to leave early. Findings suggest that teachers training to educate students with learning disabilities should student teach in a setting that is aligned with where they are likely to be hired, and with a supervising practitioner who is trained in special education.

In this position paper, the authors lay out the imperative for equitable artificial intelligence (AI), highlighting the essential role of access-oriented institutions and calling on technology companies (both large and small), foundations, and local, state, and federal regulators to consult with the newly convened Complete College America Council on Equitable AI in Higher Education. Their belief is that equitable AI spans far beyond the risk of mis-trained data. How schools adopt or reject these tools, the priorities of AI vendors, access to resources that enable the use of these tools, and the systemic integration of historically underrepresented and underserved voices will shape whether technology amplifies privilege or fosters inclusivity. A three-fold framework is presented for understanding Equity in AI, considering not just the quality and unbiased nature of the data used to train generative AI machines but also who has access to conversations around policy and product, as well as which institutions have access to the resources and safety nets that enable innovation and experimentation in the field of AI. A disruptive new advisory council is proposed, the Complete College America Council on Equitable AI in Higher Education, composed of representatives from historically excluded institutions and, by extension, students. The authors urge policymakers, technologists, and funders to proactively consult the Council and disrupt systemic inequities by integrating AI into higher education rather than continue to perpetuate them. [This paper was created in partnership with T3 Advisory.]