IES Blog

Due to the impact of the COVID pandemic on school operations, it will not be possible for NCES to conduct the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessments in accordance with the statutory requirements defined by the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) which requires NAEP to be conducted in a valid and reliable manner every 2 years (20 U.S.C. 9622(b)(2)(B)).

NCES has been carefully monitoring physical attendance patterns in schools across the county. I have determined that NCES cannot at this time conduct a national-level assessment (20 U.S.C. 9622(b)(2)(A)) in a manner with sufficient validity and reliability to meet the mandate of the law. Too many students are receiving their education through distance learning or are physically attending schools in locations where outside visitors to the schools are being kept at a minimum due to COVID levels. The NAEP assessments are a key indicator of educational progress in the United States with trends going back decades. The change in operations and lack of access to students to be assessed means that NAEP will not be able to produce estimates of what students know and can do that would be comparable to either past or future national or state estimates.

As Commissioner for Education Statistics, I feel it would be in the best interests of the country and keeping with the intent of ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9622(b)(2)(B)) to postpone the next NAEP collection to 2022. By postponing the collection, we are allowing time for conditions on the ground to stabilize before attempting a large-scale national assessment. Further, if we attempted to move forward with a collection in 2021 and failed to produce estimates of student performance, we would not only have spent tens of millions of dollars, but also will not by law be able to conduct the next grades four and eight reading and mathematics assessments until 2023. By postponing to 2022, we will be more likely to get reliable national and state NAEP results closer to the statutorily prescribed timeline than if we attempt and fail to collect the data in 2021.

Additionally, delaying the next NAEP assessment to early 2022 will reduce the burden this year on schools, allowing time for the states to conduct their own state assessments this spring. To create comparable results, NAEP is conducted during the same time window across the country each time it is given. This was impractical as COVID infection rates differ greatly from state to state during any one time. NAEP also uses shared equipment and outside proctors who go into the schools to ensure a consistent assessment experience across the nation. I was obviously concerned about sending outsiders into schools and possibly increasing the risk of COVID transmission.

State assessments, however, generally use existing school staff and equipment; thus, eliminating this additional risk associated with NAEP. Therefore, while having nationally comparable NAEP data to estimate the impact of the COVID pandemic on educational progress would be ideal but impossible, there is still an opportunity to get solid state-by-state data on the impact of COVID on student outcomes. This state-level data can serve as a bridge until Spring 2022 when NCES will likely be able to conduct the national NAEP assessment in a manner that has sufficient validity and reliability. 

By James L. Woodworth, NCES Commissioner

On October 15, 2020, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released the 2017–18 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The CRDC is a biennial survey that has been conducted by ED to collect data on key education and civil rights issues in our nation’s public schools since 1968. The CRDC provides data on student enrollment and educational programs and services, most of which are disaggregated by students’ race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency designation, and disability status. The CRDC is an important aspect of the overall strategy of ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to administer and enforce civil rights statutes that apply to U.S. public schools. The information collected through the CRDC is also used by other ED offices as well as by policymakers and researchers outside of ED.  

As a standalone data collection, the CRDC provides a wealth of information. However, the analytic power and scope of the CRDC can be enhanced by linking it to other ED and government data collections, including the following:

• Common Core of Data (CCD)  
• EDFacts
• National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Parent and Family Involvement (PFI) Survey
• Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program 
• Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

A Crosswalk to Link CRDC Data to Other Data Collections

To facilitate joining CRDC data to these and other data collections, NCES developed an ID crosswalk. This crosswalk is necessary because there are instances when the CRDC school ID number (referred to as a combo key) does not match the NCES school ID number assigned in other data collections (see the “Mismatches Between ID Numbers” section below for reasons why this may occur). By linking the CRDC to other data collections, researchers can answer questions that CRDC data alone cannot, such as the following:

• Is there an association between student participation in Advanced Placement course-taking and district per pupil expenditures? The answer to this question can be explored using data from the CRDC and the CCD’s Local Education Agency (School District) Finance Survey (F-33).
• Are student suspensions and expulsions more prevalent in high-poverty school districts? The answer to this question can be explored using data from the CRDC and the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program.
• What school environment factors (e.g., physical attacks, sexual assault, assault with a weapon) are related to graduation rates? The answer to this question can be explored using data from the CRDC and EDFacts adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) data.

Mismatches Between ID Numbers

Mismatches between CRDC combo key numbers and NCES ID numbers may occur because of differences in how schools and districts are reported in the CRDC and other collections and because of differences in the timing of collections. Below are some examples.

• Differences in how schools and school districts are reported in the CRDC and other data collections:
  • New York City Public Schools is reported as a single district in the CRDC but as multiple districts (with one supervisory union and 33 components of the supervisory union) in other data collections. Thus, the district will have one combo key in the CRDC but multiple ID numbers in other data collections.
  • Sometimes charter schools are reported differently in the CRDC compared with other data collections. For example, some charter schools in California are reported as independent (with each school serving as its own school district) in the CRDC but as a single combined school district in other data collections. Thus, each school will have its own combo key in the CRDC, but there will be one ID number for the combined district in other data collections.
  • There are differences between how a state or school district defines a school compared with how other data collections define a school.
• Differences in the timing of the CRDC and other data collections:
  • There is a lag between when the CRDC survey universe is planned and when the data collection begins. During this time, a new school may open. Since the school has not yet been assigned an ID number, it is reported in the CRDC as a new school.

Interested in using the ID crosswalk to link CRDC data with other data collections and explore a research question of your own? Visit https://www.air.org/project/research-evaluation-support-civil-rights-data-collection-crdc to learn more and access the crosswalk. For more information about the CRDC, visit https://ocrdata.ed.gov/.

By Jennifer Sable, AIR, and Stephanie R. Miller, NCES

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.

Since 2004, IES has been preparing researchers to conduct high-quality, rigorous education and special education research through training grant programs. This roughly $281 million investment has helped change universities and departments across the nation and supported the training of over 200 students interested in beginning doctoral programs, nearly 1000 doctoral students, over 280 postdoctoral fellows, and hundreds of practicing researchers at universities, research firms, state and local agencies, and other organizations.

Over the months to come, we will be spotlighting these IES training programs and those who have participated in them. This blog series will include interviews, updates, and program descriptions as we learn more about the research, innovations, and careers of IES training program participants.

Join us as we celebrate the possibilities created by the following IES training programs:

• Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training – first awarded in FY 2004 and supported by NCER
• Postdoctoral Research Training – first awarded in FY 2005 and supported by NCER
• Postdoctoral Research Training Program in Special Education and Early Intervention – first awarded in FY 2008 and supported by NCSER
• Methods Training for Education Research – grew out of unsolicited grants that focused on training (funded in FY 2008), leading to specific competition first awarded in FY 2013 and supported by NCER 
• Early Career Development and Mentoring in Special Education – first awarded in FY 2013 and supported by NCSER
• Pathways to the Education Sciences – first awarded in FY 2016 and supported by NCER
• Methods Training for Special Education Research – first awarded in FY 2016 and supported by NCSER

For more information about the NCER training programs, contact Dr. Katina Stapleton, and for information about NCSER training programs, contact Dr. Katie Taylor.

This blog was written by Dr. Meredith Larson, program officer for NCER Postdoctoral Research Training grants, and is the first in an ongoing series: Spotlight on IES Training Programs.