Category Archives: Research

Why Can’t We Find Even the Most Basic Info About Schools in Secure Facilities?

Amid recent fuss about the accuracy of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Data Collection, it’s important to look at how those data errors can meaningfully impact education experiences for young people for whom no other substantive national research exists: students attending school in secure juvenile justice facilities.

Approximately 50,000 young people are incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities across the country on any given day, and they are supposed to attend school while they are in custody. For many of these students, attending school in a secure facility is the first time they have engaged with school consistently in three to five years. Their school experience while in custody is their last best chance to change the trajectory of their lives.

The problem is we know very little about the quality of these educational opportunities.

The biannual data collection conducted by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is intended to be a comprehensive survey of education access in all schools in the country, and it now includes these juvenile justice schools. But our analysis from earlier this year found that states, and OCR at large, have not taken the responsibility for accurate reporting seriously. In fact, inconsistencies and incompleteness render the OCR data nearly meaningless. Alarmingly, the data still do not allow us to answer even the simplest question: How many students were enrolled in a juvenile justice school in 2013-14? Continue reading

ICYMI: #BWTalksTalent Week

Ten bloggers. Nine posts. One week.

At Bellwether, we spent last week talking about teachers and school leaders for our #BWTalksTalent series.  We shared insights from staff who’ve led classrooms, schools, and organizations. And we shared opinions, research, and personal experiences on how to create a robust ecosystem of adults to better serve students.

Topics ranged from trauma-informed teaching, to principal satisfaction, to retaining teachers of color.

If you missed it, here’s a recap of our conversation:

You can read the whole series here!

School Principals Aren’t Quitting En Masse, But These Factors Affect Their Satisfaction

Photo courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action

This post is part of a week-long series about educator and leader pipelines. Read the rest of the series here.

An often-cited 2012 MetLife survey indicated that 1 in 3 principals was very likely to leave their role. According to EdWeek coverage at the time: “Nearly half of principals surveyed indicated that they ‘feel under great stress several days a week.’ And job satisfaction among principals has decreased notably…” After the survey’s release, the education community echoed concerns about increasingly frustrated principals.

But a new report indicates that while some principals may be as unsatisfied as they were in 2012, they are not in fact fleeing the job in droves.

This past July, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) published findings on principal attrition and mobility from the 2016-17 Principal Follow-up Survey.

The overall results show that principals stay in the profession at high rates. Among the 2015-16 cohort, 88 percent were still principals in 2016-17, with 82 percent of them in the same school. More than half had served as principals in the same school for three or more years, and nearly 70 percent had served as a principal in any school for three or more years.

The report separates the survey sample into “stayers” (serving as principal in the same school as the base year), “movers” (serving as a principal in another school), “leavers” (not serving as a principal), or “other.” Digging into the attrition data more deeply reveals that the percentage of stayers, movers, and leavers holds fairly consistently across various characteristics, but there are some differences. While small — often just a few percentage points — a few of these differences stand out, potentially warranting monitoring over time to see if new trends emerge:

  1. A higher proportion of charter school principals leave the profession compared to district school principals. The difference in the percent of leavers is less than four percentage points (13.8 percent compared to 9.4 percent), but the 2016-17 results are the first to show this difference. Results from the two previous versions showed differences less than one percentage point between the two groups. We can only speculate what factors may be driving the change, and only time will tell if it represents and emerging trend or a one-time blip.
  2. Having less experience as a principal does not appear to affect attrition rates, but experience as a teacher prior to becoming a principal may. The percentage of leavers across years of experience as a principal is fairly stable except for the highest levels of experience. Higher “leaver rates” among the most experienced principals is expected because of the impact of retirement. However, a slightly higher proportion of principals reporting less than five years experience as a teacher prior to becoming a principal left the profession, suggesting that either total experience, total experience in education, or specific experience as a teacher may influence how long a principal stays in the profession.
  3. A slightly higher proportion of principals who served in lower-income schools leave the profession compared to wealthier schools. The difference in the proportions between these two groups is only 3 percentage points (11 percent compared to 8 percent). It is also worth noting that the proportion of leavers serving in schools with a lower percentage of free and reduced-price lunch participation (between 25-49 percent) is about the same as that in schools with the highest participation rates. In short, student population doesn’t seem to largely affect principals’ decision-making.
  4. Even principals who indicate a high level of dissatisfaction in their work mostly stay in their roles. The vast majority of principals surveyed indicated that they find their jobs satisfying, and a sizable proportion indicate plans to remain in the profession as long as they are able or at least until retirement. Even among the subset expressing agreement with negative statements such as “I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began this job” (29 percent of respondents), “I think about staying home from school because I’m just too tired to go” (13 percent),  or “The stress and disappointments involved in being a principal in this school aren’t really worth it” (16 percent), more than three-quarters of them stayed in their roles at their same schools.

The good news is that on average, principals appear to be a fairly stable group: they stay in their roles over time, and when that stability is matched with quality leadership, good things will happen for students and schools. But it is critical to continue working to ensure that educators have the supports and resources they need to be successful so that every school has an inspired leader at the helm.

Want to Keep Great Teachers? Listen to What They Say.

This post is part of a week-long series about educator and leader pipelines. Read the rest of the series here.

Last Monday was the first day back for DC Public Schools (DCPS). Luckily, many DCPS students entered classrooms led by teachers rated “effective” or “highly effective.” In fact, the district retains 92 percent of these in-demand educators.

But what about the high-performing teachers who leave the district? There is a common misconception that a punitive evaluation system is the main issue driving out great DCPS teachers. Yet, when you actually ask teachers, this narrative doesn’t seem to tell the whole story.

DCPS surveys all teachers exiting the district to ask about why they left, where they went, and what would have made them stay. In a recent report, we took a closer look at these data and focused on high-performing teachers’ responses to better understand how to retain these teachers in particular.

Analyzing why great educators leave can be a touchy subject, so when we released the report, our approach was not appreciated by all:

Kaya and Dan are right in that, compared to other urban districts, DCPS does not have a problem retaining its high-performing teachers. We know that because of the district’s evaluation system, IMPACT, which meaningfully differentiates teachers’ performance:

But we still thought it important to review these findings. A rigorous evaluation system such as IMPACT makes the resulting data on what high-performing teachers want much more valuable than data from systems that struggle to identify outstanding teachers. By focusing on good and great teachers, our report aims to provide DCPS and other urban districts with strategies to intentionally retain these high performers.

Differentiating teacher retention by performance speaks to a larger research-backed theory: not all teacher churn is bad. Yes, in general teacher turnover is harmful to students, but when districts can replace teachers who leave with higher performing teachers, it is better for student achievement. DCPS is a shining example of this approach.

In case you missed our original report, here are the key themes we found in our analysis:

These findings give DCPS and other similar urban school districts data to consider when making changes to retain their best teachers. They could give experienced, high-performing teachers more options for extended leave and part-time employment. They could address how school leaders show encouragement and recognition to high performers or think about systems for behavioral and instructional support. On the flip side, trying to retain potential career changers might not be a promising strategy since most of them say there was nothing the district could have done to change their mind.

Although DCPS already retains a large majority of its effective and highly effective teachers, we hope that our report will help the district continue to do so and potentially influence other urban districts that are considering retention strategies.

Expand Your Ed Policy Toolkit with Human-Centered Design

Design Methods for Education Policy Website

Design Methods for Education Policy Website

In February, I released a white paper making the case that policy professionals can create better education policies by using human-centered research methods because these methods are informed by the people whose lives will be most affected.

Yesterday, we released a companion website (https://designforedpolicy.org/) that curates 54 human-centered research methods well-suited to education policy into one easy-to-navigate resource. We took methods from organizations like IDEO, Stanford’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, and Nesta and organized them by the phases of a typical education policy project. We included brief explanations of how each method might be applied to your current work.

To be sure, you probably already use some human-centered design methods in your work, even if you don’t think of them that way. Interviews and observations are commonplace and provide highly valuable information. What the design world brings is a mindset that explicitly and deeply values the lived experiences of the people who are most impacted by problems and an array of methods to capture and analyze that information. It also adds a heavy dose of creativity to the process of identifying solutions. And despite a common misconception, when done well, human-centered design methods are very rigorous, fact-based, and structured to root out assumptions and biases.

When combined, common policy analysis methods and human-centered design methods can result in a powerful mix of quantitative and qualitative, deductive and inductive, macro and micro, rational and emotional elements. Continue reading