IES Blog

By Dana Tofig, Communications Director, Institute of Education Sciences

Across the country, hallways and classrooms are full of activity as students head back to school for the 2016–17 academic year. Each year, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) compiles some back-to-school facts and figures that give a snapshot of our schools and colleges for the coming year. You can see the full report on the NCES website, but here are a few “by-the-number” highlights. You can also click on the hyperlinks throughout the blog to see additional data on these topics.

The staff of NCES and the Institute of Education Sciences hopes our students, teachers, administrators and families have an outstanding school year!

50.4 million

The number of students expected to attend public elementary and secondary schools this year—slightly more than the 2015–16 school year. The racial and ethnic profile of these students will continue to shift, with 24.6 million White students, 7.8 million Black students, 13.3 million Hispanic students, 2.7 million Asian/Pacific Islanders students, 0.5 million  American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 1.5 million students who are two or more races. About 5.2 million students are expected to attend private schools.

16.1

The expected number of public school students per teacher in fall 2016. This ratio hasn’t changed much since 2000, when it was 16.0. However, the pupil/teacher ratio is lower in private schools—12.1—and has fallen since 2000, when it was 14.5. 

$11,600

This is the projected per-student expenditure in public elementary and secondary schools in 2016–17. Adjusting for inflation, per student expenditures are expected to rise about 1.5 percent over last school year.

3.5 million

The number of students expected to graduate from high school this academic year—nearly 3.2 million from public school and more than 310,000 from private schools.

20.5 million

This is the number of students expected to attend American colleges and universities this fall—an increase of 5.2 million since fall 2000. About 11.7 million of these students will be female, compared with 8.8 million males. About 13.3 million will attend four-year institutions and 7.2 million will attend two-year institutions.

14.5% and 16.5%

These percentages represent college students who were Black and Hispanic, respectively, in 2014. From 2000 to 2014, the percent of college students who were Black rose 2.8 percentage points (from 11.7 percent to 14.5 percent) and the percent of college students who were Hispanic rose 6.6 percentage points (from 9.9 percent to 16.5 percent).

$16,188 and $41,970

These are the average annual prices for undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board at public and private non-profit institutions, respectively, for the 2014–15 academic year. The average annual price at private, for-profit institutions was $23,372. 

By Erin Pollard, ERIC Project Officer, NCEE

Over the past several years, the staff of ERIC has worked hard to get to know its users—we want to understand who uses ERIC and how they are using it. We found that the most common users are college undergraduates using the ERIC electronic library to write research papers as part of their school work. We also learned that they often weren’t searching for the best resources to meet their needs.

For example, some users told the ERIC help desk they were writing a paper for an introductory “contemporary issues in education” course, but they were requesting documents from over 20 years ago. Also, some of the documents they wanted were not peer-reviewed or particularly relevant to their topic. It became clear that we could do a better job addressing our most frequent users’ needs.

First, we redesigned the ERIC website to be more friendly and intuitive for those who are not familiar with traditional search methods, making it more likely they would get the best results (learn more about searching ERIC). Second, we worked to develop tools to help novice users, including a new series of how-to videos.

The first video in this new series is aimed at students—Using ERIC to Write a Research Paper. The ERIC team worked with undergraduate faculty members to outline a step-by-step approach to describe how a student should begin a search process, refine their results, and use different fields to find the resources they need. The video describes how to use ERIC to find full-text resources and how users can know that they found right resources.

We asked school of education faculty and librarians for their thoughts on this video and received a lot of positive feedback. Some professors said that they would link to this video on their syllabi and post it on their course management systems, while librarians have posted it on their content management system, called LibGuides. Take a look and see what you think.  And if you have feedback on this or any other ERIC videos, or suggestions for new videos and tools, let us know through the ERIC Help Desk.

By Elizabeth Warner, Team Leader for Teacher Evaluations, NCEE

These days, people want answers to their questions faster than ever, and education research and evaluation is no exception. In an ideal world, evaluating the impact of a program or policy would be done quickly and at a minimal expense. There is increasing interest in quicker-turnaround, low-cost studies – and IES offers grants specifically for these types of evaluations.

But in education research, quicker isn’t always better. It depends, in part, on the nature of the program you want to study and what you want to learn.

Consider the case of complex, multi-faceted education programs.  By their very nature, complex programs may require several years for all of the pieces to be fully implemented. Some programs also may take time to influence behavior and desired outcomes.  A careful and thorough assessment of these programs may require an evaluation that draws on a large amount of data, often from multiple sources over an extended period of time. Though such studies can require substantial resources, they are important for understanding whether and why an investment had an intended effect. This is especially true for Federal programs that involved millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

On August 24, IES plans to release a new report from a large-scale, multi-year study of a complex Federal initiative: the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) [1] This report – the third from this evaluation -- will provide estimated program impacts on student achievement after three years of implementation. The Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund is a $13.7 million study that stretches for more than six years and has reported interim findings annually since 2014. (The graphic above is from the a study snapshot of the first TIF evaluation report.) 

A “big study” of TIF was important to do, and here’s why.

Learning from the Teacher Incentive Fund

TIF is a Federal program that provides grants to districts that want to implement performance pay with the goal of improving teacher quality.  TIF grants awarded in 2010 included the requirement that performance pay be based on an educator evaluation system with multiple performance measures consistent with recent research. The grantees were also expected to use the performance measures to guide educator improvement.

The TIF evaluation provides an opportunity not only to learn about impacts on student achievement over time as the grant activities mature but also to get good answers to implementation questions such as:

• How do districts structure the pay-for-performance bonus component of TIF?
• Are educators even aware of the TIF pay-for-performance bonuses?
• Do educators report having opportunities for professional development to learn about the measures and to improve their performance?
• Do educators change their practice in ways that improve their performance measures? 
• Are principals able to use their ability to offer pay-for-performance bonuses to hire or retain more effective teachers?  

Analyses to address these questions can suggest avenues for program improvement that a small-scale impact evaluation with limited data collection would miss. 

Studying the Initiative Over Time

With four years of data collection, the TIF evaluation is longer than most evaluations conducted by IES. But the characteristics of the TIF program made that extensive data collection important for a number of reasons.

First, TIF’s approach to educator compensation differs enough from the traditional pay structure that it might take time for educators to fully comprehend how it works. They likely need to experience the new performance measures to see how they might score and how that translates in terms of additional money earned. Second, educators might need to receive a performance bonus or see others receive one in order to fully believe it is possible to earn a bonus. (The chart pictured here is from the second report and compares teachers’ understanding with the actual size of the maximum bonuses that they could receive. This chart will be updated in the third report.)

That also might help them better understand what behaviors are needed to earn a bonus.  Finally, time might be needed for educators to respond to all of the intended policy levers of the program, particularly related to recruitment and hiring.

There is a lot of discussion these days about the importance of bringing many voices to the table when designing, implementing, and interpreting research studies. The usefulness of educational research is only enhanced when teachers, policmakers, and researchers work together to design studies and understand the findings.

The Educational Testing Service and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) sponsored such an opportunity on May 18 and 19 by bringing together over 150 researchers, practitioners, instructional specialists, federal staff, and policy makers to reflect on the efforts of the of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative (RfU).

Researchers from the six RfU teams shared what they learned about how to work together to design and implement new approaches and improve reading for understanding from PreK through high school. They also discussed what needs to be done to build on this effort.  (Check out this recent blog post to learn how some researchers are building on the work of the RfU Initiative.)

Sessions at the meeting were designed to promote discussion among attendees in order to take advantage of different viewpoints and  better understand the implications of the RfU findings and the relevance for practice and policy. The meeting culminated with two panels tasked with summarizing key points from these discussions. One panel focused on implications for research, and the other on policy implications. The presence of practitioners from the field, researchers, and policymakers led to a well-rounded conversation about how we can build upon the research of RfU and put it into action in the classroom.

The agenda, presentation slides, and webcasts of the closing panels are now available for viewing on the meeting website.  

Written by Karen Douglas, Education Research Analyst, NCER

What role do physical activity, inactivity, and sleep habits play in students’ academic outcomes? Some new IES-funded research grants will help us find out.