Search

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 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.]

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.)