IES Blog

Institute of Education Sciences

Bar Chart Races: Changing Demographics in K–12 Public School Enrollment

Bar chart races are a useful tool to visualize long-term trend changes. The visuals below, which use data from an array of sources, depict the changes in U.S. public elementary and secondary school enrollment from 1995 to 2029 by race/ethnicity.


Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education,” 1995–96 through 2017–18; and National Elementary and Secondary Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity Projection Model, 1972 through 2029.


Total enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has grown since 1995, but it has not grown across all racial/ethnic groups. As such, racial/ethnic distributions of public school students across the country have shifted.

One major change in public school enrollment has been in the number of Hispanic students enrolled. Enrollment of Hispanic students has grown from 6.0 million in 1995 to 13.6 million in fall 2017 (the last year of data available). During that time period, Hispanic students went from making up 13.5 percent of public school enrollment to 26.8 percent of public school enrollment. NCES projects that Hispanic enrollment will continue to grow, reaching 14.0 million and 27.5 percent of public school enrollment by fall 2029.

While the number of Hispanic public school students has grown, the number of White public school students schools has steadily declined from 29.0 million in 1995 to 24.1 million in fall 2017. NCES projects that enrollment of White public school students will continue to decline, reaching 22.4 million by 2029. The percentage of public school students who were White was 64.8 percent in 1995, and this percentage dropped below 50 percent in 2014 (to 49.5 percent). NCES projects that in 2029, White students will make up 43.8 percent of public school enrollment.

The percentage of public school students who were Black decreased from 16.8 percent in 1995 to 15.2 percent in 2017 and is projected to remain at 15.2 percent in 2029. The number of Black public school students increased from 7.6 million in 1995 to a peak of 8.4 million in 2005 but is projected to decrease to 7.7 million by 2029. Between fall 2017 and fall 2029, the percentage of public school students who were Asian/Pacific Islander is projected to continue increasing (from 5.6 to 6.9 percent), as is the percentage who were of Two or more races (from 3.9 to 5.8 percent). American Indian/Alaska Native students account for about 1 percent of public elementary and secondary enrollment in all years.

For more information about this topic, see The Condition of Education indicator Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools.

 

By Ke Wang and Rachel Dinkes, AIR

Reducing the Burden to Grantees While Increasing the Public’s Access to IES Funded Research

In 2011 the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) adopted the IES Public Access Policy. This policy requires all IES grantees and contractors to submit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts to ERIC. ERIC then makes the work freely available to the public 12 months after publication. Operationally, this has required all grantees and some contractors to submit their work through ERIC’s Online Submission portal. To date, over 1,400 articles have been submitted as a result of this policy.

As part of an effort to minimize burden for our grantees and contractors, ERIC has negotiated agreements with the publishers of over 600 education journals to display publicly funded articles in ERIC 12 months after publication or sooner. If grantees or contractors publish their work in a participating journal, the journal will submit the full text to ERIC on behalf of the grantee. The grantee will not need to submit their work to the ERIC Online Submission portal. This is the same process currently implemented for work published by IES.

To ensure that their work is included, grantees and contractors are responsible for:

  • Including their grant or contract number(s) in the acknowledgements section of the published article.
  • Confirming that the journal title, publisher, and year matches ERIC’s list of participating journals.
  • Informing their publishers that they are subject to the IES Publication Policy when their manuscript is submitted.

This policy takes effect starting for work published after January 1, 2020. Grantees who published work prior to 2020 will still need to submit their work through ERIC’s Online Submission portal. Similarly, grantees publishing in journals not participating in this program will need to submit their work through the Online Submission portal. If an article was accepted by a journal that was participating in this program, but then the journal moved to a publisher that is not participating, the grantee will have to submit the article to ERIC using the ERIC Online Submission portal

ERIC is working to expand the list of journals who agree to display the full text of grantee articles. ERIC will update the list of participating journals multiple times a year, as new publishers sign agreements to participate in this program or journals move to a non-participating publisher. Publishers interested in participating should email ERICRequests@ed.gov for more information.

Addressing Mental Health Needs in Schools PreK to 12: An Update

As the month of May draws to a close in this unprecedented time of COVID-19, recognizing May as National Mental Health Awareness Month has taken on new significance. Organizations such as the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) have long advocated for school-based mental health services to address the lack of access to mental health treatment in the United States for children and youth. In a 2016 blog, we provided a snapshot of the PreK to 12 school-based mental health research that the National Center for Education Research (NCER) had supported up to that point. With schools closed and uncertainty about when they will open, we are keeping an eye on these and more recent projects to see how IES-funded researchers and their school partners have addressed or are addressing mental health needs.

Preschool

  • Jason Downer (University of Virginia) developed the Learning to Objectively Observe Kids (LOOK) protocol to help prekindergarten teachers identify and understand children’s engagement in preschool and choose appropriate techniques to support children’s self-regulation skills.

Elementary School

  • Golda Ginsburg (University of Connecticut) and Kelly Drake (Johns Hopkins University) developed the CALM (Child Anxiety Learning Modules) protocol for elementary school nurses to work with children who have excessive anxiety.
  • Desiree Murray (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) is testing the Incredible Years Dina Dinosaur Treatment Program (IY-child) for helping early elementary school students with social-emotional and behavioral difficulties. This study is nearly complete, and findings will be available soon.
  • Gregory Fabiano (SUNY-Buffalo) adapted the Coaching Our Acting Out Children: Heightening Essential Skills (COACHES) program for implementation in schools. This is a clinic-based program to help fathers of children with or at risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) get more involved and engaged in their child's school performance. 
  • Aaron Thompson (University of Missouri) is testing the Self-Monitoring Training and Regulation Strategy (STARS) intervention to see if it can improve behavior, social emotional learning skills, and academic performance for fifth grade students who engage in disruptive or otherwise challenging classroom behaviors. The pilot study of promise is currently in progress.
  • Karen Bierman (Pennsylvania State University) is testing whether an intensive, individualized social skills training program, the Friendship Connections Program (FCP), can remediate the serious and chronic peer difficulties that 10–15 percent of elementary school students experience. Most of these students have or are at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders and exhibit social skill deficits (for example, poor communication skills, inability to resolve conflict) that alienate peers. This study is almost complete, and findings should be available soon.
  • Linda Pfiffner (UC San Francisco) is completing development of a web-based professional development program for school mental health providers to gain the skills needed to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) for student attention and behavior problems.

Middle School

  • Joshua Langberg (Virginia Commonwealth University) refined the HOPS (Homework, Organization, and Planning Skills) program for middle school counselors and psychologists to support students with ADHD who need help with organization and time management. Dr. Langberg recently completed an efficacy trial of HOPS. In 2019, an independent research team at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia received a grant to test the effectiveness of HOPS.
  • William Pelham (Florida International University) and colleagues at SUNY Buffalo are testing the efficacy of adaptive, evidence-based classroom interventions (such as Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions delivered through a Response to Intervention framework) for children with ADHD in a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) design framework.
  • Thomas Power (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia) is testing the efficacy of a school-based organizational skills training program (OST-S) for students in 3rd through 5th grade with deficits in organization, time management, and planning (OTMP), key executive function skills that support success in school.
  • Desiree Murray (UNC Chapel Hill) is completing the development of a self-regulation intervention for middle school students. The intervention will adapt and integrate strategies from existing evidence-based practices that intentionally target self-regulatory processes that develop during early adolescence.
  • Catherine Bradshaw (University of Virginia) is adapting the Early Adolescent Coping Power (EACP) to the rural school context. The Rural-EACP will address the cultural and contextual challenges of providing appropriate supports to help youth with aggressive behavior challenges in rural settings.   

High School

Policy

  • Sandra Chafouleas (University of Connecticut) identified current policies and national practice related to school-based behavioral assessment to determine whether current practice follows recommended best practice, and to develop policy recommendations for behavioral screening in schools. 

Written by Emily Doolittle (Emilly.Doolittle@ed.gov), Team Lead for Social and Behavioral Research at IES, National Center for Education Research

 

The “Where” of Going to College: Residence, Migration, and Fall Enrollment

Newly released provisional data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System’s (IPEDS) Fall Enrollment (EF) survey provides an updated look at whether beginning college students are attending school in their home state or heading elsewhere.  

In fall 2018, the number of first-time degree/certificate-seeking students enrolled at Title IV postsecondary institutions (beginning college students) varied widely across states, ranging from 3,700 in Alaska to 400,300 in California (figure 1). College enrollment is strongly correlated with the number of postsecondary institutions within each state, as more populous and geographically large states have more institutional capacity to enroll more students. Most states (32 out of 50) and the District of Columbia enrolled fewer than 50,000 beginning college students in fall 2018 and only six states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) enrolled more than 100,000 beginning college students.


Figure 1. Number of first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at Title IV institutions, by state or jurisdiction: Fall 2018SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS, Spring 2019, Fall Enrollment component (provisional data).


As a result of students migrating outside their home states to attend college, some postsecondary institutions enroll students who are not residents of the same state or jurisdiction in which it is located. Among beginning college students in fall 2018, the share of students who were residents of the same state varied widely, from 31 percent in New Hampshire to 93 percent in Texas and Alaska (figure 2). For a majority of states (27 out of 50), residents comprised at least 75 percent of total beginning college student enrollment. Only three states (Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and the District of Columbia enrolled more nonresidents than residents among their fall 2018 beginning college students.


Figure 2. Percent of first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at Title IV institutions in the state or jurisdiction who are residents of the same state or jurisdiction: Fall 2018

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS, Spring 2019, Fall Enrollment component (provisional data).


States experience varying levels of out-migration (i.e., residents leaving the state to attend college) and in-migration (i.e., nonresidents coming into the state to attend college). For example, in fall 2018, California experienced the largest number of residents out-migrating to attend college in a different state (44,800) but gained 37,800 nonresidents in-migrating to attend college in the state, for an overall negative net migration of beginning college students (figure 3). In contrast, New York also experienced a large number of residents out-migrating for college (33,800) but gained 43,300 nonresidents, for an overall positive net migration of beginning college students.


Figure 3. Number of first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students at Title IV institutions who migrate into and out of the state or jurisdiction: Fall 2018

NOTE: The migration of students refers to students whose permanent address at the time of application to the institution is located in a different state or jurisdiction than the institution. Migration does not indicate a permanent change of address has occurred. Migration into the state or jurisdiction may include students who are nonresident aliens, who are from the other U.S. jurisdictions, or who reside outside the state or jurisdiction and are enrolled exclusively in online or distance education programs. Migration into the state or jurisdiction does not include individuals whose state or jurisdiction of residence is unknown.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS, Spring 2019, Fall Enrollment component (provisional data).


Approximately three-quarters of states (37 out of 50) and the District of Columbia had a positive net migration of beginning college students in fall 2018 (figure 4). The remaining one-quarter of states (13 out of 50) had more residents out-migrate for college than nonresidents in-migrate for college, resulting in a negative net migration of beginning college students. Net migration varied widely by state, with New Jersey experiencing the largest negative net migration (28,500 students) and Utah experiencing the largest positive net migration (14,400 students).


Figure 4. Net migration of first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students at Title IV institutions, by state or jurisdiction: Fall 2018

NOTE: Net migration is the difference between the number of students entering the state or jurisdiction to attend school (into) and the number of students (residents) who leave the state or jurisdiction to attend school elsewhere (out of). A positive net migration indicates more students coming into the state or jurisdiction than leaving to attend school elsewhere.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS, Spring 2019, Fall Enrollment component (provisional data).


The newly released IPEDS Fall Enrollment data provide tremendous insights into the geographic mobility of beginning college students. Additional analyses on residence and migration can be conducted using the full IPEDS data files. For example, the data can identify to which states and types of institutions beginning college students out-migrate and, conversely, from which states postsecondary institutions recruit their incoming classes.

 

By Roman Ruiz, AIR

How to Seek Funding to Support CTE Research Partnerships

Over the past six months, Advance CTE and IES have worked together to highlight the power of CTE research partnerships in improving quality and equity in CTE. In Michigan, years of close collaboration between the Department of Education and the University of Michigan has enabled state leaders to address critical policy questions like choosing a secondary CTE program quality performance indicator. South Dakota leveraged relationships in the research community to improve data quality and foster a data-driven culture at the state level. And in Massachusetts, state leaders are working alongside long-time research partners to identify critical access and opportunity gaps and build solutions that enable equitable access to high-quality CTE.

Partnerships like these provide measurable benefits by allowing state policymakers to make informed decisions that impact learner success and bolster state talent pipelines – but they do come at a cost. The partnerships highlighted in this series were supported via a combination of state, federal, and foundation funds. Research grant funds are most often used to cover personnel time for work on the research project, both at the university or research organization and at the partner education agency. As many of our state agency interviewees mentioned, it is difficult to carve time out of their regular responsibilities to work on a research project. By securing dedicated funding to cover part or all of a person’s salary, a state agency can afford to spend time on a research project. In addition, research grant funds can be used to provide incentives for students, teachers, and schools to participate in a research study, for the development and administration of surveys or classroom observation tools (to complement information available in administrative data systems), and for software and hardware to analyze and house the data.

With growing public support for CTE, fueled by urgent needs for skilled labor, CTE programs will be called upon to do even more. States should be prepared with a research and evaluation strategy to determine whether and which strategies are most effective (and cost-effective). So how should states go about establishing and funding new CTE research partnerships?  

Options for Financing State CTE Research Partnerships

There are a number of avenues states can take to finance CTE research. Federal sources of funding for CTE-related research include the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and the National Science Foundation. Education research funding may also be available at other agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture. Private funding for CTE research projects is also available from foundations such as the ECMC Foundation1, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

The National Center for Education Research (NCER) at IES launched a special CTE topic in its Education Research Grants program in 2017 to encourage researchers to study CTE. Funded grants under this topic have examined CTE-related issues such as industry certifications, applied-STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) CTE pathways and work-based learning. IES also funds CTE research under other programs and maintains a CTE Statistics webpage. In 2018, in partnership with the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), IES formed a CTE Research Network to increase the amount and quality of causal research in CTE. CTE Research Network members have been studying the impact of various CTE programs and delivery models on student high school, postsecondary and labor market outcomes. The National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) began funding CTE research for students with disabilities in 2019.

New Opportunity to Apply for Federal Funding to Study CTE!

There is good news for state leaders and researchers interested in initiating CTE research partnerships. NCER has just released its Fiscal Year 2021 Request for Applications (RFA) for its Education Research Grants Program (CFDA 84.305A). This grants program, one of several in NCER, was established in 2002 to produce research that is scientifically rigorous and relevant to the needs of education practitioners and decisionmakers. NCER welcomes CTE-related research proposals under the CTE topic or under other topics (such as STEM, Improving Education Systems, and Postsecondary and Adult Education). NCSER has a separate RFA for its special education research grants program (CFDA 84.324A) and welcomes applications to study CTE for students with disabilities.

Research grant applications are due at midnight (Eastern time) on August 20, 2020. Letters of intent (not required but encouraged) are due on June 11, 2020. Each of the open RFAs, as well as archived webinars for applicants about the IES grant process, are available on the IES funding opportunities page.

Applicants should start early to make sure they have everything they need. In addition to viewing on-demand webinars, applicants should be sure to read the RFA closely and pay attention not only to the application requirements but also to the IES recommendations for a strong application. For example, applicants should describe their theory of change and any prior research on the issue; align their research methods to the research questions; describe measures and data source; and make sure the sample size offers adequate statistical power. This grants program is very competitive, and peer reviewers will be paying attention to whether applicants follow the recommendations. Everyone involved in the submission process should also familiarize themselves with the IES submission guide, which details the steps necessary to successfully submit an application online.

We are eager to hear any and all ideas! Corinne Alfeld (Corinne.alfeld@ed.gov) and Austin Estes (aestes@careertech.org) would be happy to discuss them, and Corinne can also provide technical assistance in writing a research grant application to IES. She can be reached by email to set up a phone call to discuss project ideas.


This final blog post wraps up our series aimed at increasing state Career Technical Education (CTE) research partnerships by highlighting ways to seek research funding. Corinne Alfeld, Research Analyst at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and Austin Estes, Manager of Data & Research at Advance CTE, collaborated to create this blog series in the hopes that more state agencies would partner with researchers to examine research questions related to CTE using state data.

 

1The ECMC Foundation is a funder of Advance CTE’s work.