IES Blog

It goes without saying the COVID19 pandemic has and continues to have a profound effect on education. Students are adjusting to hybrid or fully remote learning, and educators are continuing to make complex decisions about how best to support students in the new normal.

On October 28, 2020, InnovateEDU and the Educating All Learners Alliance hosted a webinar focused on education technology resources for special education. More than 1,100 practitioners joined the event in real-time.

The webinar featured video demonstrations of five special education technology tools that were developed through the IES Small Business Innovation Research Program and ED’s Office of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program. The event also included conversations with special education practitioners and researchers who provided perspectives on the role of special education and technology to meet the needs of all students. The webinar involved a variety of resources and opportunities, including:

• A new Guide to Special Education Resources which presents information on 20 research-based tools
• A video replay of a May 2020 “Virtual Unconference in Special Education” featuring a full day of presentations and panels for remote teaching and learning
• The Educating All Learners Alliance website, which provides curated tools, strategies, and best practices for supporting students with disabilities remotely during COVID-19
• The CAST website, including: Accessible Education Materials for COVID-19; Framing the Future of Learning with Technology, Clusive, a universally designed reader for students with learning needs, and Learning Designed, a professional development and micro-credentialing platform for practitioners
• An announcement of an upcoming funding opportunity through ED/IES SBIR, which releases around December 1 and calls for proposals from small businesses for up to $200,000 for R&D of new and innovative special education technology products

During the webinar, practitioners participated by adding comments in the chat box with a “wish list” of education technology they would like to have now to support teaching and learning. Participants entered dozens of responses, many calling for increased connectivity and access to hardware and software, especially in rural areas. Other responses focused on education technologies for teachers, students with or at-risk for disabilities, and parents and caregivers.

Following are just a few of the entries:

For Teachers

• “More coaching tools to use with children who are learning remotely to provide instantaneous feedback”
• “Descriptions that allow teachers to at-a-glance identify the features a program offers to match to the features that their students need”
• “Using data to support teachers and students with decisions that move learning forward.”
• “Resources that I can use to assist with non-compliant behaviors and keeping their attention in person and virtually.”
• “Making it possible for students to show their work for math so that we can see that rather than just their answers.”
• “Common share place for all teachers.”
• “I am looking for a way to deliver instructions to the home distantly”

For Students with Disabilities

• “Teaching students how to be self-determined learners.”
• “Build this skill set from kindergarten.”
• “Develop and implement collaborative activities”
• “My nonverbal students need hands on.”
• “Engagement and motivation; remote resources.”
• “Student choice and voice.”

For Parents

• “Make it a family affair / Zoom with family member supporting on other side.”
• “A resource that we can use to incorporate the parent or group home worker that have to navigate these different learning apps for the student.”
• “Easy-to-follow videos that we can use to show parents and students how to use these resources when they aren’t in front of us.”

Lastly, one of the teachers provided a comment: “We need more of these events.”  From everyone involved in the October 28 webinar, thanks for attending. We are planning for more events like this one soon.

Edward Metz (Edward.Metz@ed.gov) is a research scientist at the Institute of Education Sciences in the US Department of Education.

Tara Courchaine (Tara.Courchaine@ed.gov) is a program officer at the Office of Special Education Programs in the US Department of Education.

Part 2 of the National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) blog series for American Education Week (AEW) is dedicated to public school teachers in recognition of their significant influence on the educational experiences of students in their classrooms (read part 1 here).

The NTPS collects information directly from public and private school teachers and principals to provide a picture of education in the United States from their perspective. Data from the 2017–18 NTPS can be viewed by state (using the NTPS State Dashboard), allowing public school teachers and principals to compare data from their state to those of their colleagues in other states across the country (note that these data were collected prior to the coronavirus pandemic). NCES and the Census Bureau are currently interviewing schools, principals, and teachers for the 2020–21 NTPS. When the data collection is complete, we will be able to look at changes over time, including changes between experiences before the pandemic and current experiences, both within and across states. 

A few highlighted teacher and principal characteristics from the 2017–18 NTPS can be found below.

AEW Day 4: U.S. Public School Teachers’ Experiences (2017–18 NTPS)

• Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of public school teachers strongly or somewhat disagreed with the statement “the stress and disappointments involved in teaching at this school aren’t really worth it,” compared with about a quarter (28 percent) of teachers who strongly or somewhat agreed. These data are also available by state.
  • More teachers in high-poverty schools—where 75 percent or more of students were approved for the free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program—agreed with the statement (33 percent) than did teachers in low-poverty schools—where 0–34 percent of students were approved for FRPL (24 percent) (figure 1).
  • Of the 99 percent of all public school teachers who had received any professional development during the last school year, 76 percent agreed with the statement “I have sufficient resources available for my professional development.” There are also differences in these data by state.
    • Fewer teachers in high-poverty schools agreed with the statement (75 percent) than did teachers in low-poverty schools (78 percent).

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of teachers, by level of agreement with the statement “The stress and disappointments involved in teaching at this school aren’t really worth it” and FRPL participation rate of K–12 students in their school: 2017–18

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2017–18.

AEW Day 5: Principals as Educators (2017–18 NTPS)

Although day 5 of Americacn Education Week celebrates substitute teachers, NTPS does not collect data on these education professionals. NTPS can, however, be used to understand school staff who have teaching responsibilities outside of their normal assignments. For example, some public school principals also teach regular classes.

• Across all U.S. public schools, 7 percent of principals also taught one or more regularly scheduled classes at their schools. These principals served for an average of 8 years and taught for an average of 4 years during those 8 years.
  • Principals in the smallest schools (based on student enrollment) taught more often than did principals in larger schools (figure 2).
• According to the 2016–17 NTPS and the 2016–17 Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS),^[1] more than 90 percent of public school principals strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “I am generally satisfied with being principal at this school.” This percentage, however, varied by the occupational status (i.e., “stayer,” “mover,” “leaver,” or “other”^[2]) the principal indicated on the PFS: 83 percent of “stayers,” 6 percent of “movers,” 9 percent of “leavers,” and 2 percent of “others” strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement (figure 3).
• However, 16 percent of public school principals strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “the stress and disappointments involved in being a principal at this school aren’t really worth it.”

Figure 2. Percentage of principals who regularly taught one or more classes, by student enrollment in their school: 2017–18

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Principal Data File,” 2017–18.