NCES Blog

Full-time teachers in public school earned an average of $59,050 from all income sources in the 2015–16 school year. This income includes teachers’ base teaching salary, as well as additional sources of income from their schools or districts, jobs outside the school system, and summer activities. To capture the different ways that teachers can earn income, the 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey asked teachers questions about how much they earned from various sources:

• Base teaching salary. Teachers’ average base teaching salary was $55,120 for the 2015-16 school year.
• School supplement. About 44 percent of teachers received additional compensation for extracurricular or additional activities in their school system, such as coaching, sponsoring student activities, mentoring teachers, or teaching evening classes. These teachers earned an average of $2,630 for these activities.
• Merit pay. Some teachers earned merit pay or pay-for-performance income based on their students’ performance. About 6 percent of teachers received this type of additional compensation, with an average amount awarded of $1,470.
• Other school system support. About 8 percent of teachers received income during the school year from some other source in their school system, such as a state supplement, for an average of $2,670.
• Outside jobs. During the 2015-16 school year, 18 percent of teachers held a job outside the school system, earning an average of $5,140. Teachers categorized these jobs as teaching or tutoring (5 percent), non-teaching but related to the teaching field (4 percent), or in another field (9 percent).
• Summer jobs. In the summer of 2015, before the start of the 2015-16 school year, 20 percent of teachers earned income from either a school-based teaching position, such as teaching summer school, or a non-teaching position, and 16 percent earned income from a non-school job. Teachers earned an average of $2,700 from school-based summer positions, and an average of $4,060 in a non-school job.

To learn about teachers’ satisfaction with their teaching salary, more information is available in the short report Teacher Satisfaction with Salary and Current Job.

The National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) includes data on a wide variety of other topics as well. Visit the website to learn more.

By Maura Spiegelman

It’s important for schools to help ensure students are safe and healthy, both physically and mentally, so that learning can occur. In addition to implementing security measures on school campuses, there has been a growing focus on whether schools provide mental health services. In school year 2015–16, some 71 percent of public schools reported having diagnostic assessments for mental health disorders available to students, and 64 percent of schools reported having treatment available. ^[i]

These data come from the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). The 2015–16 SSOCS questionnaire added new questions asking principals to report whether diagnostic assessment and treatment services for mental health were available to students under the official responsibilities of a licensed mental health professional.^[ii] Diagnostic assessments are used to identify whether a student has one or more medical and/or mental health diagnoses. Treatment is a clinical service, such as psychotherapy, medication, or counseling, which is intended to lessen or eliminate the symptoms of a disorder.

The prevalence of mental health services varied by school characteristics. In both middle and high schools, diagnostic assessment services were more common than treatment services: 74 percent of middle schools and 79 percent of high schools reported diagnostic assessments were available, compared with 66 percent of middle schools and 69 percent of high schools reporting treatment services were available. Compared to primary schools, a higher percentage of high schools reported that both types of mental health services were available.

Figure 1. Percentage of public schools reporting the availability of mental health services under the official responsibilities of a licensed mental health professional, by type of mental health service and school enrollment size: School year 2015–16

¹Mental health disorders were defined for respondents as, collectively, all diagnosable mental disorders or health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood, or behavior (or some combination thereof) associated with distress and/or impaired functioning.
NOTE: Mental health services are provided by several different types of mental health professionals, each of which have their own training and areas of expertise. The types of professionals who may provide mental health services include psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric/mental health nurse practitioners, psychiatric/mental health nurses, clinical social workers, and professional counselors. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about school crime and policies to provide a safe environment.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015–16 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2016. See table 40.

The percentage of schools with 1,000 or more students that reported having diagnostic assessment services available (80 percent) was higher than the percentages of schools with fewer than 300 students (69 percent), 300–499 students (68 percent), and 500–999 students (71 percent).

The questionnaire also asked principals to report to what extent certain factors limited the school’s efforts to provide mental health services to students. The most common limiting factors reported by schools were inadequate funding (75 percent) and lack of parental support (71 percent).

Figure 2. Percentage of public schools reporting that their efforts to provide mental health services to students were limited in a major or minor way due to specified non-school-level factors: School year 2015–16

¹Mental health disorders were defined for respondents as, collectively, all diagnosable mental disorders or health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood, or behavior (or some combination thereof) associated with distress and/or impaired functioning.
²Mental health services are provided by several different types of mental health professionals, each of which have their own training and areas of expertise. The types of professionals who may provide mental health services include psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric/mental health nurse practitioners, psychiatric/mental health nurses, clinical social workers, and professional counselors. 
³Examples of legal issues provided to respondents were malpractice and insufficient supervision.
NOTE: Respondents were asked to rate the level of limitation in their school’s efforts to provide mental health services to students for each factor. Survey response options included “limits in major way,” “limits in minor way,” or “does not limit." Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about school crime and policies to provide a safe environment.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015–16 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2016. See table 39.

You can find more information on school crime and safety in NCES publications, including Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2015–16 and the 2017 Indicators of School Crime and Safety.

By Rachel Hansen, NCES and Melissa Diliberti, AIR

We are pleased to present The Condition of Education 2018, a congressionally mandated annual report summarizing the latest data on education in the United States. This report is designed to help policymakers and the public monitor educational progress. This year’s report includes 47 indicators on topics ranging from prekindergarten through postsecondary education, as well as labor force outcomes and international comparisons. 

In addition to the regularly updated annual indicators, this year’s spotlight indicators highlight new findings from recent NCES surveys. The first spotlight indicator examines the choices and costs that families face as they select early childhood care arrangements. Drawing on data from the NCES National Household Education Survey, the indicator finds that early childhood care expenses were higher in 2016 than in 2001. For example, families’ average hourly out-of-pocket expenses for center-based care were 72 percent higher in 2016 ($7.60) than in 2001 ($4.42), in constant 2016–17 dollars. The indicator also finds that in 2016, some 57 percent of children under the age of 6 had parents who reported there were good choices for child care where they lived. Among children whose parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2016, some 32 percent cited cost as the primary reason. The complete indicator, Early Childhood Care Arrangements: Choices and Costs, contains more information about how these findings varied by family income, race/ethnicity, locale (urban, suburban, town, or rural), and children’s age.

Average hourly out-of-pocket child care expense for children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten whose families paid for child care, by primary type of child care arrangement: 2001 and 2016

¹ Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and childhood programs.
NOTE: Estimates include only those children whose families paid at least part of the cost out of pocket for their child to receive nonparental care at least weekly.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES: 2001 and 2016). See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 202.30c.

The second spotlight describes the characteristics of teachers who entered the teaching profession through an alternative route to certification program. Compared to those who entered through a traditional route, higher percentages of alternative route teachers in 2015–16 were Black (13 vs. 5 percent), Hispanic (15 vs. 8 percent), of Two or more races (2 vs. 1 percent), and male (32 vs. 22 percent), and lower percentages were White (66 vs. 83 percent). Overall, 18 percent of public school teachers in 2015–16 had entered teaching through an alternative route to certification program. The percentages were higher among those who taught career or technical education (37 percent), natural sciences (28 percent), foreign languages (26 percent), English as a second language (24 percent), math and computer science (22 percent), and special education (20 percent). The analysis also examines how the prevalence of alternative route teachers varies between charter schools and traditional public schools, between high and low poverty schools, and between schools that enroll high or low percentages of racial/ethnic minority students. For more findings from this analysis of data from the National Teacher and Principal Survey, see the complete indicator, Characteristics of Public School Teachers Who Completed Alternative Route to Certification Programs.

Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary school teachers, by route to certification and race/ethnicity: 2015–16

NOTE: Teachers were asked whether they entered teaching through an alternative route to certification program, which is a program that was designed to expedite the transition of nonteachers to a teaching career (for example, a state, district, or university alternative route to certification program). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Data for American Indian/Alaska Native teachers who entered teaching through a traditional route and Pacific Islander teachers who entered teaching through traditional and alternative routes round to zero and are not displayed.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.24.

The third spotlight presents data on average student loan balances for students completing graduate degrees. Using data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, this indicator examines how average student loan balances changed between 1999–2000 and 2015–16, and how those trends varied by degree type. Among graduate school completers who had student loans for undergraduate or graduate studies, average student loan balances increased for all degree types (in constant 2016–17 dollars). For example, average student loan balances for students who completed research doctorate degrees, such as a Ph.D., doubled during this time period, from $53,500 to $108,400 (an increase of 103 percent). Average student loan balances increased by 90 percent for those who completed professional doctorate degrees, such as medical doctorates and law degrees (from $98,200 to $186,600). The complete indicator, Trends in Student Loan Debt for Graduate School Completers, also describes how average student loan balances varied among specific degree programs, such as medical doctorates, law degrees, and master’s degrees in business administration.

Average cumulative student loan balance for graduate school completers, by degree type: Selected years, 1999–2000 through 2015–16

¹ Includes chiropractic, dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, podiatry, and veterinary medicine. 
NOTE: Data refer to students who completed graduate degrees in the academic years indicated. Includes student loans for undergraduate and graduate studies. Average excludes students with no student loans.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, 2011–12, and 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000, NPSAS:04, NPSAS:08, NPSAS:12, and NPSAS:16). See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 332.45.

The Condition includes an At a Glance section, which allows readers to quickly make comparisons within and across indicators, and a Highlights section, which captures key findings from each indicator. The report contains a Reader’s Guide, a Glossary, and a Guide to Sources that provide additional background information. Each indicator provides links to the source data tables used to produce the analyses.

As new data are released throughout the year, indicators will be updated and made available on The Condition of Education website. In addition, NCES produces a wide range of reports and datasets designed to help inform policymakers and the public. For more information on our latest activities and releases, please visit our website or follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

By James L. Woodworth, NCES Commissioner 

Seventy-two percent of all undergraduate students received some type of financial aid, including loans, in the 2015–16 academic year. For those who received aid, the average was about $12,300 per student. If you want to explore more statistics on student financial aid, you can! NCES has released new data from the 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). Data users have the ability to generate estimates and perform their own analyses using our online data analysis tools available in DataLab. Users can select the tool that best meets their needs, including PowerStats, QuickStats, and TrendStats.

NPSAS is the most comprehensive nationally representative study of how students and their families finance postsecondary education in the United States. The NPSAS:16 sample consisted of approximately 113,000 undergraduate and graduate students attending 1,800 postsecondary institutions in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

In addition to information on financial aid, the study collects data on many other topics, such as student demographics, total and net prices of attendance, education-related debt, major field of study, employment while enrolled, and participation in remedial education.

To enhance the data and address emerging policy issues, NCES has also included new and expanded items on these topics in NPSAS:16:

• Financial literacy, including questions to measure understanding of key financial concepts such as inflation, interest rates, and investment, plus questions on the possible consequences for failing to repay federal student loans;

• Alternative repayment options for federal loans, including awareness of and plans to use income-driven repayment and public service loan forgiveness;
• Student veterans and military students, including an oversample of student veterans, measures of federal veterans’ education benefits derived from administrative sources, indicators of whether institutions offer programs targeted to veterans and military students, and new measures of state and institution aid specifically for student veterans; and
• Study abroad, including the location and duration of time spent abroad.

A First Look report, which was released in January, highlighted key findings from the study. For more information on how the study was planned and conducted, including extensive details on sampling, data collection, response rates, weighting, and other topics, we encourage you to see the 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16) Data File Documentation report.

By Tracy Hunt-White

NCES staff will give 14 presentations during the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2018 Annual Meeting on topics ranging from Peer Victimization and Digital Learning to Higher Education and International Comparisons. The meeting takes place from April 12 to 17 and NCES staff will share their expertise in both research presentations and training sessions.

AERA is the nation’s largest professional organization devoted to the scientific study of education, and its annual meeting is the largest gathering of scholars in the field of education research.

The research presentations and training sessions involving NCES staff are listed below. In addition, the NCES booth will be featured at the exhibit hall where attendees can “ask an NCES expert,” learn how NCES data can support their research, or pick up publications and products.

Follow us throughout the conference on twitter using @EdNCES and the hashtag #AERA2018.

We hope you’ll join us whether in New York or online! A listing of all presentations by NCES staff is shown below. The first three sessions listed are trainings. Registration for the trainings is still open, but space is limited.

THURSDAY, APRIL 12

9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Training: Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) at NCES by Jim McCarroll

Sheraton New York Times Square, Lower Level, Flatiron Room

Training: Analyzing Data from International Large-Scale Assessment Using R by Emmanuel Sikali

Sheraton New York Times Square, Lower Level, Bowery Room

FRIDAY, APRIL 13

8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Training: Using NAEP Data on the Web for Educational Policy Research by Emmanuel Sikali

Sheraton New York Times Square, Lower Level, Chelsea Room

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

The Feasibility of Collecting School-Level Finance Data by Stephen Cornman

New York Hilton Midtown, Third Floor, Rendezvous Trianon

Roundtable: Use of Research Evidence in the Era of the Every Student Succeeds Act
 

A Cross-National Comparison of Teacher Attrition in the United States and the Netherlands International Teachers by Lauren Musu-Gillette

New York Hilton Midtown, Third Floor, Trianon Ballroom              

Roundtable: International Teachers

SATURDAY, APRIL 14

10:35 a.m. – 12:05 p.m. 

Relationships Between Peer Victimization and Children's Academic Performance in Third Grade by Lauren Musu-Gillette

Crowne Plaza Times Square, Room 1503

Paper Session: Early Childhood Social-Emotional Issues
 

4:05 p.m. – 6:05 p.m.

Career Opportunities Outside Academe and Consultation Allowing Educational Research and Influences on National Policies: The Ronald D. Henderson Topical Table by Peggy Carr

New York Hilton Midtown, Third Floor, Trianon Ballroom

Panel Discussion

Implications of Study Findings for the Use of Multimedia-enhanced Stimuli in Assessments by Jing Chen

NCME, Westin New York at Times Square, Room TBD

Symposium: Towards Understanding the Facilitators and Inhibitors in Writing Tasks Containing Multimedia-Enhanced Stimuli

SUNDAY, APRIL 15^th

8:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m.

An Overview of Findings from PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) and ePIRLS 2016 by Peggy Carr

New York Marriott Marquis, Fourth Floor, Brecht

Symposium: Findings and Implications from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2016
 

U.S. Achievement on PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) in the Context of NAEP Fourth Grade Reading Achievement by Eunice Greer

New York Marriott Marquis, Fourth Floor, Brecht

Symposium: Findings and Implications from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2016

A Deeper Look at PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) and ePIRLS 2016 Results: Status and Trends by Sheila Thompson

New York Marriott Marquis, Fourth Floor, Brecht

Symposium: Findings and Implications from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2016
 

10:35 a.m. – 12:05 p.m.

National Academy of Education Report on Methods and Policy Uses of International Large-Scale Assessments by Peggy Carr

New York Hilton Midtown, Second Floor, Nassau Suite B

Invited speaker

10:35 a.m. to 12:05 p.m.

Meet the Institute of Education Sciences Leadership by James Lynn Woodworth, National Center for Education Statistics/IES, U.S. Department of Education

New York Hilton Midtown, Second Floor, Murray Hill Room West

Invited speaker

6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

Statistics in the Age of Ed Tech: Seeking a Deeper Understanding of America’s Digital Divide by Tom Synder

New York Marriott Marquis, Seventh Floor, Harlem

Panel discussion

Statistics in the Age of Ed Tech: Seeking a Deeper Understanding of America’s Digital Divide by Halima Adenegan

New York Marriott Marquis, Seventh Floor, Harlem

Panel Discussion

MONDAY, APRIL 16th

8:15 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

A New Option to Identify Neighborhood Poverty Measurement of Socioeconomic Status and Related Constructs in Education Contexts by Douglas Geverdt

Westin New York at Times Square, Ninth Floor, Pearl Room

Symposium: Measurement of Socioeconomic Status and Related Constructs in Education Contexts

Serving as Discussant William Ward

Westin New York at Tim Measurement of Socioeconomic Status and Related Constructs in Symposium: Measurement of Socioeconomic Status and Related Constructs in Education Contexts

12:25 p.m. – 1:55 p.m.

State Capacity for Data Use: Findings on the Development and Implementation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems by Nancy Sharkey

New York Hilton Midtown, Fourth Floor, New York Suite

Paper Session: Examining the Capacity for Data Use